[From HillaryNeedsAVaction via The Anchoress]

I found this fascinating.


The dude is so likeable. And funny. And brilliant. This guy needs to continue this. Get out there. Explain and defend the "originalist" perspective.

It's amazing to me how many people don't get it, even after he explains it. People actually said he defended torture after watching this. He doesn't. He's just a rigid originalist, even when it goes against his personal views.

"What makes a principle a principle is one's willingness to apply it to one's own disadvantage." - Stephen L. Carter, Yale Law School

Scalia is a principled man...oh, and did I mention, HE'S COOL! I nominate him for honorary thinkling.

Go watch all four parts.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Senate Passes Resolution Saying McCain Is Natural Born.

Sen. John McCain was born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone some 71 years ago. Does that make him the kind of “natural born” citizen the Founding Fathers determined could serve as president?

Yes, the Senate agreed, and senators passed by unanimous consent a resolution to that effect Wednesday.

Not that there was much doubt about it. Even Democrats, including rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, have said they didn’t see a problem with McCain meeting the constitutional requirement that only a “natural born” citizen could serve.

Still, there had been questions in the minds of some bloggers because McCain was born Aug. 29, 1936, in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed at a U.S. naval base.

There was never any question in the mind of THIS blogger.

I was born on a U.S. Military base in a foreign land to two natural born U.S. Citizens and we were there because my father was serving our country in the U.S. Military! It has driven me bonkers when my citizenship has been questioned because I was born in a foreign country! Even gov't agencies have questioned my citizenship before. In middle school, kids used to say, "You sure don't look like you're from another country." But grown-ups and agents of the gov't should know better. Good grief people.

So thanks to McCain, it's settled. (And now I'm over 35) So if any of you want to write me in, feel free. ;-)

The Anchoress, cogent as always, nails it:

This 2008 election - and much of our electoral process - is already a two-ring circus; Rush is simply adding a third ring, and he’s perhaps also demonstrating how absurdly dishonest and vapid has it all become - the endless campaigning, maneuvering, manipulating and lying. And like a good capitalist he is turning a profit on the thing, besides. (If the “Operation Chaos” tee shirts, hats, etc are meant to support a charity, please let me know.)

So, I don’t think Limbaugh should “be stopped.” But I also don’t know that people should be giggling and guffawing over “Operation Chaos” without considering that — if the “operation” is rooted in a spirit of spiteful payback — it is bound to reap negative fruit. Moreover, I am old-fashioned enough to think of our vote is “a sacred trust” even if that is unsophisticated of me, even if others think vote manipulation is timely sport.

I keep thinking about the Russian Immigrant who looked forward to his first chance to vote in America, and told Gerard Vanderleun, “I will vote always for best, always” and about the people in Iraq who braved so much to hold their purple fingers in the air…and about the Iraqi and American dead who fought to give them that right.

And in thinking about them, I’m a bit ashamed of our three-ring circus and the casual menace which we are bringing to our own sacred process. They all deserve better than we’re giving them, right now.

[Emphasis mine].

I don't think adding a third ring (great metaphor, that) of absurdity to our current political circus is funny, cute, moral, or, on a purely pragmatic level, ultimately effective.

Plus, many of us in the conservative camp are also purportedly committed Christians. So why are we playing the role of the insurgent in the Democratic primaries? The answer "Well, they do it to us!" doesn't cut it for me, at least when said by someone who claims Jesus as Lord. It would make us pretty mad if the Democrats were mucking up Republican primaries, especially on this scale.

Sowing to this wind has a chance of reaping a whirlwind of bitterness, hatred and revenge in our political system for years ahead. Think about it: if the plan "works" and McCain wins, the next election is going to be even nastier, since we've, by our actions, disavowed any rules of fair play. It could also colossally backfire, and Hillary could win. And there's only one good thing about that: all Limbaugh's chuckling acolytes might gain a new, more sober perspective on how stupid Limbaugh's plan was the whole time, and perhaps next time fewer of them would be willing to play along.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus

After Mr. and Mrs. Obama released their tax returns, the press quickly noticed that, between 2000 and 2004, they gave less than one percent of their income to charity, far lower than the national average. Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit).

According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful . . .

In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)

(HT: BHT)

Sean Hannity didn't know last year, and neither did the rest of America, even though Jeremiah Wright tried to explain it.



What really bugs me about this clip is that Hannity never seems to listen. And he certainly doesn't answer Rev. Wright's question. Why didn't he just say, "No, I don't know what Liberation Theology is, and neither does the rest of America. Could you please explain it?" What a missed opportunity!

Now we're paying attention a year later because of some clips from his sermons show up on youtube and the news stations and commentators went nuts over Rev. Wright's "controversial" statements.

But how many of us really understand where his preaching and beliefs come from? He tried to tell us. So let's belatedly, give him a hearing. Let's do as he says and learn what Liberation Theology is, in order to better understand where he's coming from.

To understand Black Liberation Theology, you have to understand Liberation Theology.

Liberation Theology (One of my main sources was the "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" by Walter Elwell)

It is more of a movement than a systematic theology. Since its origin in Latin America in the mid-20th century it has been applied to blacks, feminists, asians, hispanics and Native Americans.

It was born in Latin America, and what came from there is the origin and model for all versions of Liberation Theology. It was primarily articulated by a man named Gustavo Gutierrez. It was heavily influenced by Marxism, and some have even said that it is a Christianized form of Marxism.

After Vatican II in 1965, Latin American Roman Catholic leaders turned to Liberation theology. Latin American Liberation theologians say that their continent has been victimized by colonialism, imperialism and multinational corporations. They say that Latin America is dependent on economic decisions made in capitalist countries like the U.S. and the U.K. So to perpetuate this economic exploitation, liberation theologians argue that powerful capitalist countries, give military and economic support to certain political regimes supportive of the economic status quo. They read history in a certain way. They read their newspapers in a certain way.

Liberation Theology was originally Latin American and Roman Catholic. Their views were rooted in history and culture. They saw what we call orthodoxy as being too individualistic. What about Social Injustice? What about Poverty? These are the questions they asked. They see a message of salvation that doesn't also include economic, social, and physical salvation as incomplete.

Method- defined by Gutierez as “critical reflection on historical praxis” Liberation Theologians say that theology should be immersed in your own intellectual and sociopolitical history. To them, Theology is not a system of timeless truths, but a changing exercise in social analysis. So new theological truth comes out of a given historical situatuion.

Marxism had a heavy influence on Liberation Theology with its teachings of class warfare. History, and the world, and the Bible are viewed as the chronic struggle of the Opressor v. The Oppressed. And of course, God is on the side of the oppressed. So that's where theology should be.

Liberation theology turns to the Bible. They point to Scriptures that show God identifying with the poor. And so communion with God is equated with fighting for the poor, identifying with them and sharing their fate. God is identified with the suffering.

Based on Luke 4:16-21 – which is based on Isaiah 61:1.

16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

This is Jesus announcing his ministry. Liberation Theologians see this as the foundational text of the whole Bible and their theology. These verses are the lense through which they read the rest of Scripture.

To them salvation means rescuing the poor. And sin is oppressing them.

So Liberation theologians teach that orthodox theology manipulates God in favor of Capitalistic social structure. What you and I call Orthodox Christianity, they call the religion of the oppressor designed to keep the oppressed down.

They emphasize God’s immanence over transecendence. To them God is worthless if he is not immersed in the fate of the oppressed. God is found in history. God is a crucified and suffering God who identifies with the poor.

The cross is primarily seen as the event in which God identifies with those who suffer and are "crucified" everyday.

So salvation is equated with the process of liberation from oppression and injustice.

Sin is defined in terms of man’s inhumanity to man.

Liberation theology equates loving your neighbor with loving God. They are virtually indistinguishable in liberation theology.

Israels’ liberation from Egypt is the prototypes for the contemporary struggle for liberation.

To the Liberation Theologian, Church and the world can’t be segregated.

Jesus’ death is not seen as a vicarious offering on behalf of mankind. Rather he exemplifies the suffering God experiences when anyone is oppressed.

As is typical in false teaching, they have some good points, but they go too far. Sin is real. And we need to be saved from it. They see only the oppressed as needing a savior. The Bible does not teach that the poor are the embodiment of God in today’s world. The Bible teaches that God is transcendent. And while he cares about the poor, that life with God does not only mean whether or not your poor. They seem to miss all of Jesus' emphasis on eternal life, on storing your treasures for the next life.

It politicizes the gospel. It is a social gospel. But it is not the Gospel.

For those of you who wonder how so many liberal churches can preach politics, there it is. To them religion is politics. Because Jesus came to save the oppressed now.

Later I'll show you how these ideas were applied to the Black experience in America, and resulted in something called "Black Liberation Theology".

Hillary is a liar.

Or if you prefer, she "merely" told a lie.

Divisive Dem Contest Could Boost McCain

Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

This comes a day after a Reuters/Zogby poll showed McCain "winning" over either Democratic candidate. Rasmussen polling is currently echoing the same positions.

Granted, polls like that are just snapshots of the voting climate that day, but it certainly speaks against the alleged certainty of a Democratic victory in the fall.

Eeyore, how you feelin'?

And where's the "Lost" liveblog? :-)

“. . . anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”

- Barack Obama, in a speech given March 18, 2008

I'm not an Obama supporter, and I can't imagine voting for someone so committed to abortion rights and the litany of other standard Democratic party platforms.

But I think people are wrong who believe the current flap about his pastor's statements from the pulpit will somehow "sink" his candidacy. I don't think it necessarily helps him, but if he loses the nomination or the general election, it won't be primarily because of this.

And, regarding his statement above, I think there's a lot of truth to it.

Thoughts?

As I write this there is still more voting to come and pundits are still speculating. (I've even done my share. :) This particular election cycle seems to have been a little more stressful and intense. Even though there were no elections in Bible times, the timeless wisdom of the Bible still has a lot to say. A few thoughts...

First, don’t worry. No matter what happens Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The person you really want may not be on the ballot, and you may feel like you are having to settle. But in the vast scheme of things, a politician’s term is only a blip in time. Remember that God is in control of all of history.

Second, remember those who vote differently than you are still your neighbors.

Third, remember that whoever the civil authority is should be respected and honored.

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to the governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. …Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone; Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king” (I Peter 2:13-14, 16-17).

We show we are Christians by how we respond even when things don’t go our way. We must continue to be good citizens and give those in authority respect, no matter who holds those positions.

The Apostle Paul echoes the words of Peter.

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves… Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him; If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:1-3, 5-7).

When Paul and Peter spoke of Government being servants of God, their ruler was a dictator! The government was pagan, and not at all friendly to Christianity. Yet, as Christians, we are to respect authority as a sign that we know where all authority ultimately comes from. Will you join me in committing to pray for our future president, whoever that is, and future local political leaders? Let’s pray that they will govern wisely and justly. Let’s pray that they will resist political pressure and do what is right. Let’s pray for their health, their families and their well-being.

Finally, remember that all human government is ultimately temporary.

“The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations” (Psalm 33:10-11).

Don’t worry. No government or nation can thwart God’s purposes. In Him alone do we trust.

Because voters often pick the next guy in line.

It's always the previous Vice-President, or the relative of a previous president, or the guy that lost the previous runs for the nomination. It's like we figure, "It's his turn." We like a feeling of legacy or maybe just fairness. "He's put in his time, let's give him a shot." Or it maybe we think that a person who has run before or has been associated with the presidency before is more likely to win this time. (Update: In comments, some have pointed out rightly, that name recognition is important.)

I think McCain had a serious credibility boost among Republicans because he had run before and had done respectfully well.

(So be looking for Huckabee or Romney next go round.)

There are other reasons. He has the image of a man who answers to no one but himself. He's his own man, strong and courageous. That appeals to moderates and independents, and shoot, it appeals to a lot of conservatives. A lot of things conspired to give McCain the nomination. But in my opinion, what put him over the top was his seniority. I'm basing my premise on what we've done for the past half-century or more.

Just looking at history, we seem to default to the next guy in line.

Republican Nominees for the past 60 Years - Evidence To Support My Thesis

1944 Thomas E. Dewey -Had run before in 1940

1948 Thomas E. Dewey -Had run before

1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower - Was a popular WWII general and public figure - Dewey championed and orchestrated his nomination

1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower - Incumbent

1960 Richard M. Nixon - Had been VP

1964 Barry M. Goldwater - Had run before in 1960 and he was a 5 time Senator from Arizona :)

1968 Richard M. Nixon - Had run before in 1964

1972 Richard M. Nixon - Incumbent

1976 Gerald R. Ford - Incumbent

1980 Ronald Reagan - Had run before in 1976

1984 Ronald Reagan - Incumbent

1988 George H. Bush - Had been VP

1992 George H. Bush - Incumbent

1996 Robert J. Dole - Had run before and was VP nominee in 1976

2000 George W. Bush - Son of previous president

2004 George W. Bush - Incumbent

2008 John McCain - Had run before

Tonight I voted for the candidates of my choice in the primaries. I hope you did too.

On that topic, Lars Walker nails it:

This morning, she [Laura Ingraham] was taking calls from Republicans in Texas who'd crossed party lines to vote for Hillary, just as spoilers for Obama. She was cheering them on, reveling in their stories.

I don't like this. It seems to me that if you love this country you've got to hold the electoral process in a kind of reverence. The fact that there are cynical people out there who game the system doesn't justify us, the people who say we believe in moral absolutes, in pretending to belong to a different party so we can sabotage its nomination process. If they did it to us, I'd be angry about it.

Aside from the questionable morals of posing as a voter for a different party just to mess things up, it would be really funny if Hillary somehow pulled out the nomination and then went on to hand the talk-radio geniuses calling for these shenanigans their rear-ends on a hubcap, electorally-speaking, in the general election.

March FORTH and vote. Do you know the old joke? That March 4th is the only day of the year that tells you to do something?

So I think it's cool that Texas' primary is today.

I'm also glad that our primary finally matters...Well, more to one party than another, but still...

I'm still wondering why we don't have a national primary. Let everyone vote on the same day. Then maybe I could have voted for my first choice this morning.

It was weird being a player. It was like Texas was the prettiest girl at the ball, finally after the other 30 ladies left. So we finally got some attention. We have counted somewhere around 30 phone calls at our house. One even offered to give us a ride to the polls. They were all automated calls, but calls nonetheless. We got several from McCain, one from Obama (even though we are registered republicans, wow), several for local contests and a few celebrity types endorsing McCain. We even got a call from "Pastor John Hagee", that's what he called himself on the phone. He told us to vote for McCain. Seems like Hagee's a little late jumping on the victory wagon.

Anyway, voting is a cool thing and I'm glad for it.

Tomorrow is the Texas primary and I still don't know who I'm going to vote for...

Chuck Norris, Stallone, Schwarzenegger have all endorsed someone, but none of them has quite provided the leadership and guidance I needed. And I've been wondering what's been missing...til now. I need Mr. T to tell me who to vote for!

I've scoured the below videos for clues, but I'm still not sure...

He wouldn't vote for Superman...



And despite his love of mothers, I don't think he'd vote for Hillary...



Oh, Mr. T, where are you when I need you most?

Many thanks to Damien for hipping me to this video in a comment he left on this post. This is hilarious, and a nice break from all the serious talk about politics, here on our humble little non-political blog.

Last Tuesday night I attended a Barack Obama rally in Houston. The chances of me actually voting for Obama are slim indeed, but I wanted to check it out; plus, my eighteen year old, and newly politically-aware, son invited me.

My observations are below, with some final thoughts at the end. I don't even try to make election predictions anymore, though.

What can you make of Obamania?
Read the rest of this entry . . .

The Anchoress has an article out on Pajamas Media about the current True Conservative (TC) phenomenon: Mama, We're All RINOs Now. A taste:

If anyone is keeping tabs on it, the Great Impure Conservative Purge is continuing apace. It seems both Cal Thomas and Oliver North — yes, Oliver North — have suggested that right-wing voters unify behind presumptive nominee Senator John McCain, and thus they have been tagged in right-wing internet forums as impure RINOs. Having failed to meet the exacting standards of the “true conservatives” within the GOP, these two are the latest heretics and infidels to be identified as “Republican In Name Only.”

North and Thomas join an illustrious gang of other RINOs identified and purged from the ranks of the “true conservatives,” including President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson (his endorsement of John McCain earned him a place), Ted Olsen, Tony Snow, George Will, Deb Price, Bill Kristol, the Wall Street Journal’s Mark Helprin, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Don Surber, the pre-Florida-panic Mitt Romney, most of the GOP “establishment,” and anyone else who suggests that a John McCain presidency — in a time of war, and with several formaldehyde-sucking SCOTUS justices likely to need replacing the moment George W. Bush helicopters out of Washington, DC — might be preferable to a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama presidency.

. . .

And of course they still like Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Talk Radio True Conservatives, who have basically yakked themselves into a corner with their demonization of Senator McCain as a “liberal, no different from Hillary!” So unrestrained have they been in their absolutes that they no longer have the option of suggesting that maybe the TCs should “hold the nose and vote for McCain.” In suggesting such a thing, the Talk Radioists would be identifying themselves as “untrue” conservatives (J’accuse!) to be kicked curbside by the very purists whose anger they have nourished, and who will not be appeased because — truly — they are Republicans in Name Only, and the party simply cannot meet their principled needs.

She's being pummeled in the comments thread for saying things like this.

In other news, I'm a conservative. But I did go to the Obama rally here in Houston last night, mainly because this intelligent young guy invited me.

It was an eye-opener. I took a lot of notes. More coming . . .

For now, I'll leave you with more Anchoress (Wayne and Garth say "excellent"): did you know Bush is still in Africa?

Yeah, me neither.

Don't fall out of your chair. I'm fair.
(And a poet.) Well, at least I'm one of those. Don't you know it.

Clinton's people accuse Obama of plagiarism.

"Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric, and the strength of his promises. So I think it's relevant when someone who's running on his rhetoric lifts words from the speeches of another politician," Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson said Monday during a conference call with reporters. When asked why the campaign is highlighting the similarities, Wolfson stated that "Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric. She's not running to be the Orator in Chief. She's running to be the president."

Of course, after Clinton's people make a big fuss about this, and news organizations start reporting this, we find out that:

Patrick and Obama are close friends, and that Obama strategist David Axelrod helped run Patrick's 2006 campaign for Massachusetts governor. Patrick tells the New York Times that he shared the language of his 2006 speech with Obama's speechwriters, and did not believe Obama should give him credit for the statement.

Here's the link.

Mr. Patrick employed similar language during his 2006 governor’s race when his Republican rival, Kerry Healey, criticized him as offering lofty rhetoric over specifics. Mr. Patrick has endorsed Mr. Obama, and the two men are close friends.

“ ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? Just words?” Mr. Patrick said one month before his election. “ ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’ — just words?”

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama who also advised Mr. Patrick, said Sunday that Mr. Obama adapted the words from Mr. Patrick. Mr. Axelrod said that he did not write the words for either candidate.

“They often riff off one another. They share a world view,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Both of them are effective speakers whose words tend to get requoted and arguments tend to be embraced widely.”

Then it's not plagiarism then, is it? Good grief. The writer gave the material to Obama along with permission to use it. Obama's speeches are making Hillary nervous. Shoot. They make me nervous. But I'll save that for the general election.

...for making me like him in his "I'm quitting" speech.

After Thompson dropped out, I had resigned myself to Romney, because he was closest to me on the issues. I read somewhere that people were voting for McCain because of his character, and people were voting for Romney because of his positions on issues. It was support for a man vs. support for ideas. I have to admit, that was true for me. I was going to vote Romney, reluctantly, because I didn't like him much.

And then I heard his speech today. Oh, man was it awesome. He said some incredible things. Bold things. True things. You need to go watch or listen to the whole thing if you can. I think it was tremendously important. If he had been speaking like that all along, maybe this race may have turned out differently. But the amazing thing is, he made me like him. I thought, "Now this is a man I can get behind. This speech is AWESOME, and he is so right." And it was his I'm quitting speech.

Don't get me wrong. I respect his reason for getting out. I was just irritated that he made me actually want to rally behind him, when he was quitting.

Do you all remember how much better Dole was AFTER he lost the race? It's as though people are better when the strings and polish come off, and they have nothing to lose.

And by the way, just for the record I'm not one of those "McCain's as bad as Hillary" wacko's. He's not. I'll vote for him in the general election, and I have to admit it's going to be a lot easier when I see the liberal he's squaring off with on the ballot. (But even as asks for the support for "dedicated conservatives", I think he needs to show us respect. I'm hopeful that he will.) The media will assume that the Republicans are "shifting to the middle". It would be dangerous for party leadership to make the same assumption.

Oh and back to Romney. I'm a fan now dude. I hope all goes well for you, and I hope that you have a future in politics.

Oh, and for those of you who pay attention, anybody who attacks me for "attacking Romney" in the title, will be exposing themselves as someone who didn't actually read this post.

What is next?