Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Where's McCain?

There has been broad speculation over why John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The consensus holds that she was tapped in a “Hail Mary” effort to bolster a flagging campaign. Now, in the aftermath, “anonymous” GOP campaign staffers are leaking garbage about her over an asinine clothing issue. Talk about a double standard – would anything like this have been dredged up had the candidate been a man? Is this what the GOP has degenerated into – a basket-full of backbiting vipers? Take a good look guys, while you conduct your post-mortem, consider this: "You have met the enemy and he is you!"

And where is McCain? He picked her to run; she flew the mission and did a creditable job. Now, with the election lost, she’s limping home, taking hits and he’s nowhere to be found. As a former fighter pilot, he above all others knows this dictum: “You never leave your wingman.” That’s almost as old as aviation. Why isn’t he rolling in to defend her?

It would be the classy thing to do - the right thing to do. Could it be, perhaps, that the best man actually did win after all?

Sunday, November 9, 2008

It's Over

It’s over. We have to live with the result. Been sitting here since last Tuesday night’s blowout in a state of shock, trying to write something – anything about the outcome.

My fiercely liberal in-laws have been sending smug emails regarding the election result, trumpeting the claim that a triumphant Obama will now lead us out of this current economic and political morass into the Promised Land.

I take small comfort in what I told them before the election: This new President and his Congress will be out to make sweeping changes. They will be coming after your wallet in short order. You won’t like the outcome. The difference between us will be that you voted for what's coming, and I, against it.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Voted tonight.

Filled out my mail-in ballot tonight. Hate to admit that it was not a very satisfying experience. Once again, I was holding my nose, filling in a block – not in support of a candidate I truly believed in, but voting instead against someone who’s worse; someone who I’m convinced if elected will cause my country irreparable harm. I’m deeply afraid that if Obama is elected, he’ll be the worst disaster to hit this nation since Jimmy Carter. His presidency will drive this nation so far left, it will take decades to repair the damage.

As a fellow former Navy pilot, I stand in awe of John McCain’s military record, especially while captive in North Vietnam. But sadly, on a political basis, he just doesn’t speak to me or for me. Ann Coulter considers him the worst possible choice as a GOP candidate and I’m not that far behind her. Surely, the Republican Party could have done better?

If McCain does manage to win next week, it won’t be because of his wit, charisma, leadership or magnetism. It will be because enough voters realized at the last minute that what Obama has in store for America in terms of “change” isn’t what they envisioned

I’ll be glad when this enervating election cycle is finally over. It’s gone on far too long and become too irritating. It’s now so polarized, that I don’t even want to discuss politics anymore with certain members of the extended family. Everybody just gets angry. Some of them consider Obama to be the “second coming”, while McCain is looked upon as the anti-christ.

C’mon Tuesday! Let’s just get this mess over with!

Obama: Elligible to be President?

If you’ve been following the brewing controversy over Barack Obama’s questionable citizenship based on whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, the legal case to confirm his status (and his eligibility to be President) took a bizarre turn on Monday. Federal judge R. Barclay Surrick decided that former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg did not have the “standing” to raise such an issue before a federal court. As a private citizen – like you and me – he lacks what…. importance? gravitas? connections?

Initially, the Obama camp was given a time frame to provide adequate proof to answer the charge. Obama’s lawyers never complied. Instead, they simply filed motions to dismiss. Yet on Monday, after the deadline had expired, the judge decided to simply drop the case, hanging his hat on the concept that an ordinary citizen does not have the legal clout to challenge the validity of Obama’s citizenship in federal court. Sure feels like a cop-out, doesn't it?

If such is the case, then who does have sufficient standing to satisfy Judge Surrick? His contention is that Congress must be the entity to make such a challenge. Since when? Is that written somewhere? If so, where?

Seems like a huge course change in a very short time span. What happened over the weekend to make this judge execute such an about-face? Did someone lean on him? Who? Six additional lawsuits have been filed in other states. What will become of them? Will they also all be cast off in similar fashion?

Moreover, what was the real reason behind Obama’s sudden trip to Hawaii - only days before the election? Was it really to visit an ailing grandmother, or was it to put out a fire?

Will questions about the validity of Obama’s citizenship be the "October Surprise" that becomes the constitutional crisis of the century? Why is no major media outlet (including Fox) giving this story the exposure it warrants?

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Barney Frank: "Pinhead or Patriot?"

Barney Frank has a new political ad now airing in his quest for re-election to Congress. The ad touts his quest to increase regulation of financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Isn't this a bit like closing the door after the horse has left the barn? His chutzpah is limitless: in a recent fiery exchange with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, he had the temerity to act as if he had no responsibility in the collapse of the above mentioned firms. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as the housing bubble swelled to the point of explosion, he continuted to claim "everything is fine". Not so. A couple months later, financial chaos.

What he won't tell you about in his ad is his propensity to consider both institutions as arms of his preferred political policy - using them to extend mortgage credit to folks simply not qualified for home ownership. This political agenda was shared by other Democrats in the House and Senate. These same folks were at the center of resistance to any measures to reign in bad lending practises.

Yet now they pass themselves off as crusaders for increased scrutiny of the very same markets they helped destroy.

Amazing...

"Installation Art" or Obscenity?

Watching this story unfold tonight made my blood boil: First there was “performance art”. Now, there’s “installation art!” It’s what’s being passed off as artistic expression in a Los Angeles community – an effigy of VP candidate Sarah Palin, hung by a noose from the side of a house.

City officials, afraid to make a move, claim that since it appears “gender related” not “race related”, they are powerless to act, since it apparently doesn’t qualify as a “hate crime”. Why would hanging an effigy of Obama be considered a “hate crime”, while hanging one of Palin not share the same status? Does that make any sense? In the 1800s, blacks were hung in Georgia; in the 1600s, women were hung in Massachusetts! Remember the Salem witch trials? As one outraged neighbor put it: “If it were an effigy of Barack Obama, you’d have Jesse Jackson and everyone else down here demanding it be removed!” So, what’s the difference?

Neighbors defending the display must think the nation is populated with morons. Observe the video footage of the “artist and friend” sniveling about “the season”, etc. in a convoluted excuse and the message is abundantly clear. Sarah Palin has every right to sue to have this insult removed. If I were the target, I certainly would. And the city fathers are powerless to take it down? Only in L.A….

This race is getting uglier by the day. And predictably, it's the far left getting more emotional and out of hand. I'll be glad when this election cycle is finally over...

Friday, October 3, 2008

A Done Deal!

It's official. The "rescue (pork barrel) package" has passed in the House, by about a 100-vote margin. Too bad. I was hoping that lawmakers would resist the urge to stampede. Apparently, the lure of pork was too seductive, as the dollar figure being discussed has now swelled to the $800 billion level.

I know, I know; we were facing a complete freeze-up of the financial markets. Nevertheless, while this rescue was being debated and voted down, it would have been nice to have taken a peek at the Republican plan. It might have provided some helpful alternatives. Moreover, given more time, how many "vulture" funds would have swooped in to clean up some of this mess, thereby lightening the load we taxpayers would have to carry?

We'll be paying this "thing" off for a long time...

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Bailout: What a Mess!

Can’t believe I’m saying this: For the first time in eons, I’m actually in agreement with anything Paul Krugman (who writes for the New York Times) has to say. In this rare instance, it’s his assessment of the current Administration’s proposed control-free credit market bailout.

We simply cannot give unfettered power to Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to preside over this massive taxpayer infusion, un-supervised and unchecked. Wasn’t Paulson at the epicenter of this maelstrom as late as 2006, before he was plucked from Wall Street to occupy his current position? Every step of the way, as this mess developed, from mortgage institutions to Wall Street firms to major commercial and investment banks - banking regulators, the SEC and the Treasury Department looked the other way as shaky financial gimmicks were cobbled together to make a fast buck. And now we’re supposed to give a product of that same power structure the authority to act in any manner deemed appropriate - without any form of oversight or review? Just another case of leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse, isn't it?

I hope that Congress has the intestinal grit to resist acting rashly, just to act. We can't afford to put any “fix” into place without proper oversight provisions. Anything less is foolhardy.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Biden: Was chosing him a mistake?

I've heard some speculation that Barack Obama might at some point re-think his choice of Senator Joe Biden as his running mate and select someone else, more palatable to the electorate.

Rather than bolster his numbers, like Sarah Palin's selection seems to have done for John McCain's Presidential bid, Obama'schoice of Biden appears to be bogging him down. Biden's appearances have been less than stellar and may have led to Obama's recent weakening poll numbers.

Here's a question: If Obama decides to dump Biden in favor of another candidate, can he do it? Is there any sort of rule or protocol preventing this? Is there even a precedent of such a change having occurred before?

Interesting...

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

A Surprise Move?

What prompted Hillary to propose a motion from the convention floor tonight to dispense with the roll call vote and instead, nominate Obama by affirmation? Who got what from whom? Party leadership had already changed the format of the roll call from alphabetical order to a different sequence, ensuring that at no time did Hillary have more nominating votes than Obama. This would indicate to me that democrat leadership was afraid the Clinton forces had enough votes to try to pull something during the process and capture the nomination.

Was a deal reached behind closed doors to forestall such an event in an effort to preserve the appearance of party unity?

Would have loved to be a fly on the wall, listening to that conversation!

Hillary’s “Unity” Speech!

Got to hand it to Hillary: Last night’s speech at the DNC convention might have been the best of her entire career. Her tone, delivery and content were spot-on. If she had made a few like that about a year ago, the convention would be all about her instead of Obama.

As has been discussed last night and this morning, what's notable is what was omitted. She stressed unity, but never mentioned Obama’s capability, never endorsed his leadership, and never did she express her unqualified support for his candidacy. She went out there and delivered exactly what she was asked to do; no more, no less.

So much entertainment! There was Bill, high above in the bleachers, obviously “on” the whole time, playing to the cameras he knew would be trained on him. He didn’t disappoint. The man’s vanity is as endless as his ego. The high point was the mouthed “I love you”s, solely for the benefit of the TV audience. And this, coming from an individual whose presidency was defined by his extramarital peccadilloes. Amazing.

And decyphering Michelle’s facial expressions throughout the speech became a form of entertainment in itself. Imagine what was running though her head. Was it: “If you try to steal this convention I’ll kill you”, or instead, “I’ve won, you lost. Now, go away”?

Can’t wait for tonight’s thrilling installment of “The Clintons”!

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Michelle's Apple Pie Speech!

Watching the DNC convention tonight brings back a comment made today on Tom Sullivan’s afternoon radio show. While Jessie Jackson’s candidacy might be considered that of a black man who happened to be running for President, we’re now looking at a candidate running for President who merely happens to be black. So, what’s the point? Perhaps it’s this: We’ve come a very long way. And despite certain democrat operatives claims about the "race card" having been played,the shattering realization is the fact that this candidacy isn’t about race; it’s about judgment, experience and honesty.

But wait, there’s more. Despite the “baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet” display, we need to keep a key fact in mind: This candidate has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

Moreover, He’s got troubling ties with a church and certain individuals who have a long-running, abiding hatred of America. Whoever crafted this love fest made sure there was no mention of angry black pastors or left-wing crazy friends - just good, old-fashioned Americana. He/she did a masterful job, right down to Michelle’s speech and bringing out the daughters for “ad-lib” comments with daddy in a remote location. Am I that cynical? Maybe so. It was a brilliant performance, nonetheless.

Rush Limbaugh nailed it this morning, aptly calling last night’s performance a careful repackaging of the Obama “brand”.

Will voters buy it in November? We’ll see.

Monday, August 18, 2008

A Purpose-driven Debate!

Wow! Saturday Night Live at Saddleback! What a different style of political debate! Kudos to Pastor Rick Warren for getting both candidates to appear on Saturday night’s discussion. His format was a master stroke.

This may have been the best political discussion of the entire election season. One moderator, same series of questions put to one candidate and then the other. No sniping, no grandstanding, no character assassination, just straight questions; you decide. Can’t think of a better format, can you?

Finally, someone was taking issue with the judiciary legislating from the bench! It was refreshing to see it addressed.

Several questions and their answers served to accentuate the differences between the two candidates. Some of the more illuminating questions posed included: “What was your greatest moral failure?” “What was your most agonizing decision?” “Relating to Supreme Court Justice choices, with whom are you most disappointed?” “Name three people with whom you would consult in a crisis.” “When does a fetus acquire human rights?” Penetrating questions, illuminating answers.

I’d sure like to see a rematch in this same venue in the future…

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Obama World Tour!

You’ve got to hand it to Obama’s handlers: They’re running a superlative campaign, creating an impression of substance – out of thin air.

Bernie Goldberg got it right on the money last night on Fox News, in his commentary with Bill O’Reilly. Obama’s too young to have had any effect on the Cold War, has had nothing to do with the Iraq war at all, and has no record of achievement during his short stint in Congress.

It really doesn’t matter what Obama says during his Middle East whistle-stops. The words evaporate within an hour. But the visual impression of “statesmanship” remains long afterwards.

Question: Will the American voter be astute enough to see through this or will he/she be drawn in by style without substance? It looks like the mainstream media has already succumbed, with every major news channel anchor eagerly riding along on the tour, while McCain remains at home, all but ignored.

Time will tell.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Limbaugh, "The Spoiler"?

Regarding the hubbub over perceptions that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is somehow manipulating the Dems’ primaries through “Operation Chaos”, here’s the scoop:

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t control anything, nor does he command an army of brain-dead sycophants, eager to do his bidding. He’s merely pointing out the obvious, and it’s this: If you want to hold a series of primary elections to determine your party’s candidate this fall, you DO NOT invite the opposition to attend. It’s simply not done!

It’s eminently apparent that the liberal faithful believe Limbaugh is part of a “massive right-wing conspiracy”, bent on controlling American society, but here’s the unvarnished reality: Talk radio and specifically, conservative talk radio exists because the American public wants it. Ratings and advertising revenues prove it. As much as progressives would like to see otherwise, American commercial radio programming is determined solely by public demand. That‘s why “progressive“ or “liberal” radio like “Air America” isn‘t as successful. Not much of a market for it.

That's the American "free enterprise" system at work...

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Pastor Torpedoes Obama Campaign?

Is it possible that outrageous, politically-charged sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, will be the weapon that scuttles the Obama campaign? While Obama attempted to further distance himself from Rev. Wright’s inflammatory pronouncements in yet another speech today, a serious issue remains (as stated on various Fox News shows) regarding Obama: Is this not a question of character and judgment? Having attended Wright’s church for 20 years, how could he at first, claim not to have been exposed to Wright’s vitriol - then later, admit that yes, he had but didn’t leave the church? After hearing of his pastor’s statements of “God damn America” and “America is al Qaeda” etc., one wonders how he could still be a part of this church. Even Oprah Winfrey, ostensibly uncomfortable with the tenor of the oratory, left Wright’s church in the early 1990s.

How can Obama be involved in this church for 20 years, be married by the pastor and allow him to baptize his children, yet claim not to have been exposed to Wright’s racist diatribes? As the situation develops and more Wright sermon clips become public, one wonders what it is about this church that attracted Obama in the first place, yet makes him unable to take responsibility for having been a parishioner for so long.

And what of Michelle Obama’s statement earlier in the campaign - “for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country"? The tone of that remark certainly takes on a strange new dimension when viewed within the context of Wright’s numerous “liberation sermons”.

Related questions: Considering the number of sermons in question and their obviously politicized subject matter, at what point does Wright’s former church jeopardize its tax-free status? Additionally, given Obama’s 20-year church relationship and his voting record in Congress, isn’t it reasonable to ask what exactly he has in mind for the U.S.?

Monday, March 10, 2008

McCain in Command, Obama and Hillary Still Slugging It Out!

So, here we are: McCain has taken the GOP nomination by virtue of his delegate count from the primaries. Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama continue to battle it out through ever more primary elections. Hillary’s Ohio and Texas wins have apparently revitalized her campaign. Questions over Obama’s ties to a Chicago property owner and his income tax returns evidently raised enough doubt in voters’ minds to give Hillary much-needed victories. But yet again, another victory for Obama in Vermont, seems to put him slightly ahead. Again.

Question: With the two of them neck and neck, how to decide a winner? Brokered convention? That’s been a topic of speculation on various news programs and something that puts a smile on Republican faces. A continued nomination fight down to the wire will surely deplete Democrat resources to the point that finding even more funding for the national campaign will be more difficult. The GOP seems to have avoided that pitfall with the Romney/Huckabee departures.

There’s been lots of talk of GOP attempts to continue the Democrat brouhaha by suggesting that Republicans and moderates vote for Hillary in unrestricted primaries to keep the ruckus alive. Even Rush Limbaugh has been accused of fomenting the idea. I think that’s a real danger of unrestricted primaries. Voters from one party can infiltrate the other camp and spoil their selection process. The same thing happened to the Republicans. Consider Tancredo, Thompson, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee: All considered more conservative, yet look at our remaining choice - McCain: How did that happen? I believe the flawed process currently shaping the Democrat race - uncommitted/undisclosed voters voting across party lines is to blame.

Considering McCain’s “Maverick” status, what next? In answer to protests from the conservative party faithful, he’s acknowledged the need to bring them back into the fold. He’ll need to. If he continues to court the center and the left, at the expense of the conservative base, he could be in for a big surprise, come November!

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Three-Party System?

During an animated discussion over a possible meltdown occurring within the GOP, the question came up: Are we headed for a three-party system? It was suggested with the contention that 30% of voters are conservative, 30% are liberal and the remaining 40% are centrist or “moderate” - somewhere in the middle. It’s this middle group that was the main concern. Ideology has isolated Republican and Democrat parties into polar opposites, alienating those whose philosophy don’t align with either extreme.

The pragmatist of our get-together opined that McCain’s “centrist” stance actually makes him the right choice for November over someone more conservative like Romney (now gone) or Huckabee. His selection as Republican candidate positions the GOP to beat the Democrat candidate. My feeling was that McCain is “spoiling” the conservative ideals of the GOP (or at least the GOP I used to know). Given his preference to be a maverick, perhaps he would be a better fit for a third party.

Can a three-party system work? Now, that’s a question for a lively debate! Recent events makes one wonder. McCain commands a greater percentage of Republican voters, while conservative talk show types disparage him for being “too liberal”. Personally I find myself in the second camp. When I heard that McCain had retained former Vincente Fox “open border” mouthpiece Juan Hernandez to be his advisor on immigration, fitting his historical stance on illegal immigration, the appointment didn’t surprise me.

But what about the audience of talk show luminaries like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage? These folks can’t all be part of a tiny but vocal right wing loonies. When you listen to them voice their frustration with the GOP’s direction, they don’t sound like nut cases; they sound like normal folks. Are the likes of the above-mentioned actually trying to dictate agenda for the electorate?

What’s happening within the GOP? Witness the meltdown in Washington over the summer, when both parties tried to stuff a compromised immigration bill down our throats. Voters across the country swamped Capitol switchboards. Does anyone believe that was solely the work of right wing ideologues?

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Romney Quits!

In a surprise move, GOP nomination candidate Mitt Romney has announced that he his suspending his fight for the GOP presidential nomination against John McCain. Stated reason: News reports indicate that after meeting earlier with his staff, Romney had originally decided to continue his campaign. But later, apparently upon reflection, he opted to withdraw in order to allow the party to now press ahead with a national election campaign rather than continue with a rancorous nomination campaign.

After “Super Tuesday” it was apparent that the numbers clearly are not with him. To have any real hope of capturing the GOP nomination, Romney would need to win the next 4 out of 5 upcoming primary elections - a possibility that just didn’t seem real, given Huckabee’s surge in the polls on Tuesday.

“Suspend” is the operative word here. Ever the analytical business head, he looked at his options and decided to “suspend” - not quit. Significant, when you consider “suspending” a campaign allows one to come back later and resume fund raising. This option could allow him to recoup some of the $18million (last quarter) and $35million (total) of his own funds that he‘s spent so far in his campaign.

His departure speech: Stirring; lots of energy and passion. Too bad he didn’t seem to project at that level before. It might have made a difference. Unfortunately, in commenting on issues other than the economy, he just didn’t seem to “find his voice”. It left folks to wonder who exactly Mitt Romney is and where he stands. “Sincerity” was also discussed among political pundits at great length. He never quit exuded the level of “sincerity” that Huckabee (and apparently, McCain) projected. He always seemed to be too smooth, too polished, too well-coifed. Someone even mused: “If only he’d mess up his hair!”

Outcome? The word is that this move garners a huge amount of goodwill for Romney within GOP ranks, providing for the possibility for a shot at the presidency in 2012.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Frustration!

Wow! What an unpredictable political season! Giuliani is suddenly out, McCain apparently in the lead and Romney trailing.

Yesterday it came out that Juan Hernandez, that bearded, slicked-back snake oil salesman who’s touted Mexico’s Vincente Fox’s talking points on Fox News, has now become McCain’s immigration advisor. That’s enough to make me gag, right there.

But wait. There’s more! California actor/governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has just thrown his support to McCain, as well! Why am I not surprised? Sadly, Arnold has proved to be yet another Dem in a GOP disguise. When he consults with in-law “Uncle Teddy” Kennedy on political matters, it’s obvious as to which direction he leans. (Witness his failed attempt at “universal health care” in our state. Even California democrats couldn’t swallow it!)

With that pedigree, how can a died-in-the-wool conservative like me possibly support McCain? What options are left? Thompson caught my ear with his “I believe in tall fences and wide gates” remark, but he’s gone. Some may say “Was he ever really here?” Giuliani wasn’t that strong in my eyes; he’s gone. Huckabee? Not sure about his message and even less sure if he can summon enough support to get to the convention. Can Romney survive?

What troubles me is the indication that both parties have taken a decided turn to the left. As such, if a Republican is elected, I suspect my core issue - illegal immigration - will again suffer from “benign neglect”. Nobody wants to touch it. If a Democrat gets in come November, the floodgates will open. I fear for this country’s future if that happens!

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Florida Primary

At this point, it appears McCain has won the Florida primary and it's doubtful Giuliani will continue, since he had put the bulk of his campaign resources into the winning the vote here, at the expense of other venues.

Looks like it's down to a two-horse race for the GOP nomination: McCain and Romney. Dick Morris is speculating that McCain has the better chance of winning, since he tends to appeal to a more moderate base. That must rule me out, since I'm really uncomfortable with him. I think he's just too liberal on several issues, including illegal immigration.

If it comes down to McCain versus Hillary, while I could never support another Clinton in the White House, I'm not thrilled with having to chose McCain.

Really struggling with this issue. What am I missing? Anyone care to share thoughts on the matter?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Voter IDs?

Picture Ids for voting: Seems like common sense to me, especially with illegals becoming more of a percentage of the population in certain areas. Frankly, I find it very disturbing that a picture ID hasn’t been required all along! There's something very eerie about showing up at a polling place, being asked for your address, but never being asked to show identification.

You need one when you make a credit card purchase; One can’t get on an airplane these days without one. Heck, even my Costco American Express card has my smilin’ mug on the back of it.
What’s the big deal among the Democrats with this issue? Aren’t they concerned with possible voter fraud, or are they more afraid that such a requirement will cause them to lose some Latino (possibly illegal) voters?

Or is it something else?

Friday, January 11, 2008

GOP Debate!

Finally saw my first GOP candidate debate last night, sponsored by Fox News. Got to admit, it was nothing like I expected. This has got to be the strangest election season I’ve ever seen. The front runners seem to exchange places every day!

Prior to last night, I had felt that Romney and McCain were established as the leaders in the race. However, during the course of the show, Fred Thompson came out of nowhere and took command of the event, with Ron Paul posing as some sort of odd background character, spewing strange remarks from time to time. During the post-debate on-air analysis, however, Paul was shown by audience poll as the winner. Where did that come from?

During the course of the season, I had grown to respect and even like Mike Huckabee, appreciating his candor and forthrightness. I had even begun to consider him a truly viable candidate for the nomination. What was difficult was trying to ascertain his positions on immigration and taxes.

This morning, on yet another analysis sequence on Fox News, Huckabee was described by a pundit as charlatan -- likened to the snake oil salesmen of old. The argument being that he is posing as a conservative, while actually being a liberal at heart when it comes to my key issues of illegal immigration and taxation.

Anyone else as perplexed as I am right now?

Friday, January 4, 2008

"Illegals paying Taxes?"

Saw a letter published in today’s Sacramento Bee Editorial section arguing for allowing illegals to enter and work in the U.S. and establishing a provision to withhold 20% of illegal aliens’ pay to provide support for schools, hospitals social services.

Here’s my response:
“Illegals should pay income taxes” is an oxymoron. While it’s true that illegal aliens typically pay roughly only 1/3rd the taxes while taking advantage of three times the social services that legal residents and citizens do, it’s not just about taxes. It’s about national security. It’s about who’s here by invitation and who’s crashed the party.

Does the United States have the right to control access into this country? Absolutely. With immigration laws much harsher than the U.S., Mexico agrees - at least when it comes to its southern neighbors. But when it comes to it’s neighbor to the north, well that’s another story.

I do have a problem with “letting illegals come here and work” (the watchword here being “illegals”) and I applaud Arizona’s move to control illegal alien employment. I wish California lawmakers would stop worrying about poll numbers and follow Arizona’s lead. If they did, I’m convinced our state budget crisis would ease.

While it’s possible that illegal aliens may not want U.S. citizenship, they certainly want all the benefits that come with it. On one point, we do agree: Children born to those here illegally, should have no right to U.S. citizenship. That privilege should be reserved for those who came here following the rules.

And now, let the “xenophobia” hysteria begin…