The ProConPundit loves Huckabee...through Iowa

This is a very interesting article that is very harsh toward Huckabee. I tend to agree with a lot of the article though I am not as harsh as Huntley. I think the media and secularists are a tad harsh on Huckabee for wishing people a Merry Christmas. At the same time, I clearly doubt his credentials to be our President at this perilous time in our history. As I have stated often, I believe McCain is the only Republican who has the necessary bona fides.

The ProConPundit REALLY dislikes Romney. I think he is disingenuous and just wrong for our country. I heart Huckabee long enough for him to beat Romney in Iowa. I think McCain is moving toward a New Hampshire win and then we are off to the races. If Romney wins in Iowa, that would hurt McCain in New Hampshire. If the Bible man can pick off Romney in Iowa, I believe the Granite State mavericks will be solidly behind McCain.

Go Huckabee in Iowa!

Huckabee? Is GOP serious?
Republicans need to burst the Huckabubble quickly
Chicago Sun-Times December 18, 2007
BY STEVE HUNTLEY

The only question is when -- not if -- the Huckabubble will burst.

Only a Republican Party hell-bent on political suicide would nominate Mike Huckabee as its standard-bearer in next year's presidential sweepstakes. Or a dispirited party so resigned to defeat that it figured it had nothing to lose in appeasing its evangelical wing by anointing a candidate who resembles Jimmy Carter more than Ronald Reagan.

A Huckabee nomination would all but guarantee the GOP an election debacle of the magnitude of Barry Goldwater's 1964 loss -- but without establishing a foundation for the future as Goldwater's candidacy did. Goldwater's failed presidential bid launched the modern conservative movement that ultimately propelled Reagan into the White House.
But Republicans don't have a death wish. They won't nominate a former Arkansas governor from Hope (the Democrats already did that). And a sure voting-booth catastrophe is only one reason why.

For starters, Huckabee carries religiosity into politics far beyond acceptable boundaries for most traditional Republicans. Like me, they're not hostile to faith. Far from it, most are believers and worship regularly. Though not very religious myself, I am troubled by the push by the secular left to drive God from the public square. Neither a Nativity scene on the village green at Christmas time nor a prayer at the opening of a high school football game seems to me to constitute establishment of a state religion. And our Declaration of Independence and Constitution would be unimaginable without the West's Judeo-Christian heritage.

But Huckabee brazenly campaigns in Iowa as the candidate offering "Christian leadership." How would we feel about a politician touting "Jewish leadership" or "Muslim leadership"? Huckabee is injecting religion into politics to the detriment of both. And he's hitting below the belt by playing an evangelical card against Mitt Romney's Mormonism. Dirty politics from an ordained minister.

Social conservatives energized by Huckabee's bid for the GOP nomination might take note of news reports about how he avoids religion in his campaigning in New Hampshire. Voters there are more fiscally conservative and not swayed by a former preacher glibly joking that Jesus is too smart to run for office.

Pro-Huckabee evangelicals can say what they want about Rudy Giuliani's stance on abortion and gay rights or John McCain's immigration position, but at least they're honest with the voters. They hold firm to the same message no matter what the state is where they're politicking.

We already know from his tax-raising record in Arkansas that Huckabee is no fiscal conservative. His attempt to disguise that boils down to damning the conservative Club for Growth, which blew the whistle on his taxing ways, as the "Club for Greed." That's a taste of what Arkansas media tell us is the unpleasant prickly side of a thin-skinned politician.

Now comes word the National Education Association in New Hampshire endorsed Huckabee for his "strong views on public education." That's teacher-union code for being against school choice. He would abandon the long-held GOP response to the dismal failings of government-monopoly education.

If that wasn't bad enough, Foreign Affairs magazine over the weekend published a Huckabee essay attacking President Bush for an "arrogant bunker mentality." Despite overall low job approval ratings, Bush remains popular with the GOP base. Romney got it right in describing Huckabee's attack as something you'd expect from the Democratic camp, not from a politician seeking to succeed Bush.

Finally, no one thinks Huckabee, even if he wins in Iowa and another early state such as South Carolina, has the organization or money to compete Feb. 5 on Tsunami Tuesday when nearly two dozen states hold primaries. It will take more than enthusiastic evangelicals to sustain the Huckabubble, and fiscal conservatives won't sign on. It's just a question of when it will burst.

Obama shows capacity to heal a hurting nation, Clinton clutching

At last week’s last pre-Iowa caucus debate among Democrats, an otherwise snorefest debate was significant in two ways. Most importantly, when Joe Biden persuasively and concisely debunked previous criticism as racially insensitive for calling Barack Obama "fresh and clean and articulate." Biden is easily the best candidate among Democrats for the presidency. He is the competence candidate and has a reasonable plan for the war in Iraq. He is bipartisan, a team player, and because Democrats vote with infatuation and idealism to the exclusion of victory and pragmatism, he doesn’t stand a stance. Following Biden’s remarks, his colleagues and opponents affirmed/applauded him. Obama went further, as he said to give church testimony, that Biden is a fine guy and his life’s work shows he isn’t a racist. It was a great tribute to Biden. It also showed Obama as one who has a genuine desire and an aptitude for bringing about racial healing which is so much a need in our country.

The other noteworthy event in the debate was when Hillary Clinton used that frightening cackle of hers in an attempt to deliver a gotcha moment to Obama. Joining the recent efforts of her pathological husband and despicable henchmen, she flopped. She was trying to put Obama in an uncomfortable position in response to a question about why he has former Clinton operatives advising him as the agent of change. Obama was unflappable. In a way that he was thoughtful and tough and humorous. It was a moment that could have been JFK to Nixon in 1960. Clinton is desperate. She is a long way from being defeated, but her stock is falling fast, as it should.

Is the ProConPundit endorsing Obama? Not so fast. Consider these three things:

1. The ProConPundit supported McCain in 2000. I voted for McCain in the primary and for Bush in the general election. Given how our world changed on 911, I still submit we would have been better prepared then and better off today had McCain been elected in 2000. I am with him now and, until the South Carolina primary is over, I am not entertaining interest in any other GOP candidate. Imus was correct a year ago when he said that we seldom have chance to elect a great president in America and that McCain offers us such a chance.

2. Biden is the best candidate among the Democrats. Chris Dodd has equal credentials and experience to Biden. Dodd turned his back on long time friend and fellow CT senator, Joe Lieberman. If you mess with Lieberman, you mess with the ProConPundit. Given the dire state of affairs in our country, we need each party to put forth the best they have to offer. Whether you like Bush or not, I think it is fair to say that we have not had a president with superb diplomacy skills since Bush I. The ProConPundit defines best as unifiers, foreign policy and diplomacy experts, and bipartisan. I believe that renders McCain and Biden as the best each party has to offer. The media imposed subway series fight between Giuliani and Hillary that the media says the country is itching for is insane. They are both baggage laden disasters waiting to happen.

3. Back to Obama. His inexperience has been largely touted, including by me. One of the things that prepares one to be president is running for president. He has performed well. Given that he has never been in a serious election before, he became a US Senator beating Alan Keyes, he is making all the right moves. Thanks largely to Chicagoan David Axelrod, his campaign manager.

The Clintons don’t really know how to win against Obama. The only thing they know how to do is lie and cheat and sling mud. Their minions stressing Obama’s middle name, his teenage drug use and kindergarten desire to be president show who they are and what they are about. What does Obama do? He brings out Oprah to talk about unity and the audacity of hope. I respect Oprah’s reply to those, such as me, who say this is not Obama’s time or his turn. She says Rosa Parks would still be on the back of the bus and Oprah would still be working in a television mail room if they had waited for someone else to declare it their turn. Fair enough. I think Obama will be president and should be. I honestly think we need someone of McCain or Biden’s competence and experience in 08. However, since Democrats vote with their libidos and rose colored glasses, I don’t see a Biden victory in the offing and Hillary would be a disaster. So the ProConPundit is growing in enthusiasm for Obama.

Last Democratic to win Vice-Presidency endorses McCain

Mench-in-chief Joe Lieberman endorses John McCain

I hope that got your attention. Joe Lieberman gets a lot of press these days as a conservative. He isn’t one. Check out his voting record. Joe Lieberman is a bona fide liberal, a lifelong Democrat. But something changed him. He won the popular vote in 2000 for the Vice-Presidency. Yes, he was the person in America that Nobel Prize, Inconvenient Truth declaring, Internet inventing Al Gore selected as his running mate. Lieberman was from Connecticut. He couldn’t bring a big state. He didn’t have a national constituency and except for political junkies like me, most people outside the beltway didn’t know who he was. The reason he was chosen was because he was good. He was the one Gore knew could be relied on. Other than marrying Tipper, it may have been the only other good move Gore ever made. How right Gore was–and how little Gore knew just how much Lieberman could be counted on.

Following their popular vote victory/electoral college defeat, no one could have blamed Gore-Lieberman for being Sore-Loserman (remember the bumper stickers?). And that is just exactly what Al Gore has done for eight years. He’s gotten on with his life, done some good, told some tall tales and spent a lot of time bad mouthing the Bush Administration–sometimes justifiably, sometimes ridiculously, always self-serving.

What did Lieberman do? He watched Bush and Cheney at 911 and realized it could have been, would have been, should have been him in the bunker and Gore being flied all over. On the National Day of Prayer in the wake of 911, Lieberman hugged Bush at the National Cathedral, demonstrating unity and empathy and statesmanship.

Whatever you think of the war, Lieberman does not fit into the two categories of fault I understand. One category are people who jumped to war or cherry picked Intel. The other are spineless Democrats who voted in favor of the war even though they were against it. Lieberman honestly believed it was the right thing to do. His consistency in seeing the matter through is based on first hand experiences he has had on the Senate Foreign Relations ommittee and numerous trips to Iraq. He’s had the candor to disagree with the Bush Administration when he needed to, the courage to agree with Bush when saw fit, ran for president against the Bush Administration in 2004 to no avail and was resilient enough to retain his Senate seat in 2006, beating a right winger turned anti-war left winger challenger Ned Lamont and the betrayal of his fair weathered Democratic friends.

For the record, of the current Democratic field for President, Biden is the only one who stuck with Lieberman in 2006. And if you are thinking that Lieberman should have endorsed a Democrat for President in 2008, keep this in mind: not one of them asked for his endorsement. McCain did. Its always nice to be asked.

Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain is a great thing. It may be more symbolic than translating any real value in terms of votes. Lieberman and McCain would each tend to be respected by the New Hampshire brand of independent voters except that those folks also tend to be anti-war.

Lieberman and McCain are both statesman. They have each been betrayed by their own party. That’s because they put country and integrity over partisan loyalty.

Imus is back, the ProConPundit is back, and McCain is on the way.

Having collected a $ 21 million settlement from CBS for firing him for doing what they specifically hired him to do, be outrageous and offensive, Don Imus returned to the airwaves and to RFD-TV on December 3. Following a mild mannered warm up, Imus declared, "Dick Cheney is still a war criminal, Hillary Clinton is still Satan, and Imus is back." Thank God. Its a great show. Imus' great forte is his ability to interview influential people and grill them as no one else does. Welcome back I-man!

Much to the criticism and consternation of some loyal and brilliant blog readers, the ProConPundit felt the need for a break. The political race is just starting to get interesting, so the ProConPundit thought it was time for a comeback.

And Sen. John McCain is on his way back. He has racked up endorsements of the DesMoines Register, the Boston Globe, and the New Hampshire Union Leader. Check out this list of other McCain endorsements: http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/.

Sen. Larry Craig misunderstood!

He thought public men's rooms were sanctuary spaces!

More later. :-)

Every Dog Has It's Day.

I hope Vick has to serve his sentence in dog years.

Nunn sense!

Intrigue and odd twist

In a recent post, the ProConPundit spoke of the necessity of the Democratic nominee to choose a conservative, Southern Democrat IF ONE STILL EXISTS. One still does exist–Sam Nunn. For the record, the ProConPundit did not forget about Sam Nunn–I just got tired of wishing he’d get into the race. I wanted Nunn to run in 1988. Think he might have done better than Dukakis? I wanted him to run in 1992. Think he would have been more focused than Clinton? I wanted him to run in 2000 and 2004...Gore and Kerry–enough said.

Georgian Sam Nunn was a U.S. Senator from 1972 to 1996. He had a credible reputation for being bi-partisan and crafted legislation with such luminary Republicans as Barry Goldwater (AZ) and Richard Lugar (IN). Nunn served as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He also served on the Intelligence and Small Business Committees.

His major legislative achievements included the Department of Defense Reorganization Act and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which deactivated more than 5,900 Soviet nuclear warheads. Sam Nunn was rumored to be a top choice of Clinton to be Secretary of Defense or State. Clinton instead chose the innocuous Les Aspin and later the anemic William Cohen to be Defense Secretary and Warren Christopher as Secretary of State. Clinton would have had a more successful presidency had he selected and listen to Nunn.

Nunn was considered a moderately-conservative Democrat. He was not afraid to break with his party when he disagreed with them. He opposed Clinton’s Budget in 1993, opposed Clinton’s support of gays in the military and sought to amend the constitution to require a balanced budget. He thought death penalty appeals should be limited was pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-environment, pro-affirmative action and pro-prayer in the public school. These are all positions he held as of when he left office a decade ago. The ProConPundit is not sure where he stands on them today.

For the record, the ProConPundit is in favor of a balanced budget, favors enforcing gun laws already on the books and screening of gun purchasers, is pro-life, favors a moment of silence in public schools for people to pray if they like, supports gay equality and domestic partnerships but not gay marriage and thinks affirmative action is not an effective tool today.

Sam Nunn is way more conservative than the base of the Democratic party but is in the mainstream of most Americans. Two weeks ago, he confirmed that he had met with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to discuss "the current political climate." Nunn would not rule out running for President next year and would only rule out being someone’s running mate. He said, "The only thing I would consider would be running for the big office." On Sunday, he said he would not make a decision on an independent run until after the GOP & Dems have nominees.

The ProConPundit would love to see Nunn as a candidate and thinks he would be a superb and most capable president. He is two years younger than John McCain. He doesn’t fit the stereotype of an independent candidate. Third party candidates such as Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader all had a salient issue they were associated with and had big followings. I can’t see Nunn in that team picture. Although he had a reputation for being very bi-partisan and is agitated by the incredible lack of same in congress today, he also impresses me as a pretty loyal party guy. Its hard to picture him leaving the fold.

As much as he says he would never want to be a VP, so do most people who end up on tickets. His name being out there might inspire the Democratic party nominee to select him. Imagine if the Democratic party were to nominate someone with pitiful experience such as Barrack Obama or John Edwards–Nunn would be the perfect choice. As much as I can’t picture him teaming up with the GOP, if he's thinking of an independent run, anything is possible. If Giuliani or Romney got nominated, Nunn would be a running mate choice that would invite unity, bring someone with Southern conservative, foreign policy and defense department experience on board. Even if it is only flirtation, Nunn brings some intrigue and enthusiasm to the party.

Bottom line: As Dan Rather would say (someone the ProConPundit rarely quotes): "Don't bet the trailer money" on a Nunn run.

"My Country, Mexico"

Disgraceful Methodist Church harbors criminal

Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant, who first came to the US illegally in 1997 and, on numerous occasions, was arrested, deported to Mexico and returned again illegally to the U.S., was arrested Sunday afternoon at Our Lady, Queen of Angels Church in Los Angeles.

Arellano was provided sanctuary at Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago a year ago until she left there last weekend. Recognizing the possibility of arrest and deportation, Arellano said, in Spanish, ''From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want,. 'I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight.'' Yes, that’s right after ten years in the US, Mexico is her country.

Here is the ProConPundit’s position, concisely:
1. Arellano has illegally come into this country several times, has been deported before, and continues to return. She had a child in this country without citizenship or a husband.
2. It is an absolute travesty that Arellano was provided sanctuary f or a year at Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago. I am curious as to how the Methodist Sunday school teachers taught the children about right and wrong and the value in telling the truth while this criminal had residence in the church.
3. Her deportation sends a great message that breaking the law is wrong and will not be tolerated.
4. Newspapers throughout this country have done polling on Arellano’s deportation and no less than 85% of anyone who responded believed her arrest and deportation was wholly appropriate.
5. The presidential candidates need to get in touch with the reality of where the American people stand on this issue and, by huge majorities, they do not favor amnesty.
6. Arellano fancies herself as illegal immigration’s answer to Rosa Parks. When Rosa Parks insisted on moving to the front of the bus, everyone was shocked and racists were appalled...but decent people everywhere knew she was right. Arellano is wrong. Her argument is with what she herself describes as "My country, Mexico."

7. If you have a lock on your front door, your position is clear: you favor border security and are against illegal intrusion.

Karl Rove Taking on Final Project of Bush Administration:

Electing a Successor

Make no mistake. Karl Rove may be leaving the White House but he is not leaving the Bush Administration. He was not forced out. It has nothing to do with subpoenas or spending more time with his family or because the work of the Bush Administration is over.

Karl Rove is leaving the White House to put his undivided efforts in service of the last crucial project of the Bush Administration–electing Bush’s successor. Officially or unofficially, Karl Rove will be working to elect a successor that is acceptable to President Bush by virtue of continuing his vision. The ProConPundit is not sure who that is. McCain, Thompson or Huckabee are my best guesses.

If you think George W. Bush is not concerned about who his successor will be, think again. If you think George W. Bush will leave The White House with his head hung in shame and return to Texas like LBJ ready to do nothing but drink and let his hair grow, think again. Incidentally, the ProConPundit intends no disregard to LBJ. Bush, while not having a ready made successor in his VP, thank God, is critically concerned about who will replace him. He has had a rocky history with McCain yet McCain is the best shot to lead in a way that will reflect well on Bush. Some of Bush’s family members having been flirting with the Romney and Thompson campaigns. Above anything else, Bush does not want Hillary Clinton in the White House. What’s more? President George H. W. Bush, or as I like to say, the real Bush, does not want Hillary Clinton elected. If Hillary is elected, the Clinton spin will be that they twice delivered the country from the Bushes.

Romney buys victory in Iowa.
Huckabee earns it.

The ProConPundit believes that the Iowa GOP Straw vote is useless and pivotal at the same time. Its an unofficial "election" where voters pay $ 35 to vote and have to go to great effort to vote. 14,000 voted, McCain and Giuliani skipped the poll, while Romney worked Iowa hard to the tune of 5 million dollars. Romney spent 2.5 million dollars in campaign ads and another 2.5 million in campaign materials. He garnered 4516 votes.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spent pennies in comparison and eked out 2587 votes. The useless part of the straw vote is that two of the top contenders took a pass and Romney bought votes. It is pivotal for Huckabee in that he earned his votes by doing retail politics and, by coming in second, even in such a small and insignificant race, it gives him some hope of moving to the top tier. The ProConPundit has come to like Huckabee in recent months as he has become better know. I am still not comfortable with a Baptist minister in the White House and I may never be ready for another governor from Arkansas! But Huckabee is working hard to go places. Should McCain, who is still the best qualified contender, fall off the chart, the ProConPundit will be shopping for a new contender and I can’t see it being Rudy or Romney. If you want to learn more about Huckabee, check this out: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Home

In fairness, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) came in a few hundred votes behind Huckabee. I don’t think it says as much for Brownback as he is from nearby Kansas and should have done well in Iowa. The sooner Brownback and other "not-a-chance" wannabees exit the stage, the more attention can be given to serious contenders. Brownback is a VERY angry guy and we Americans DO NOT elect angry people to the White House. Except for Nixon...and well, Carter. Almost never!

P.S. Mike Huckabee’s star is rising and this will be his time to see if he can make it to the big leagues. If he can’t, he will likely carve out a pivotal spot for himself as the running mate to the nominee. Why? Arkansas only has six electoral votes and is a reliably red state. However, if Hillary Clinton runs, Bill will work Arkansas and try to carry it. In a close election, moving Arkansas to a Democratic win could win Hillary the election. Having Huckabee as the running mate may insure that it stay red.

"We Can’t Make John Black"
We’re too busy trying to make him sincere!

Elizabeth Edwards recently caught some flack for saying, "The Web can be liberating. It's about bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media," says Elizabeth Edwards, wife and confidant of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. "The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices." With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hogging media coverage, campaigns can push their messages without paying for ads. "In some ways, it's the way we have to go," Edwards says. "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fund-raising dollars. Now it's nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all."

Elizabeth has been called a racist and sexist when she is simply correct. Clinton and Obama as the first serious woman/black to seek nomination are newsworthy. That is a challenge for the rest of the Democrats vying for air. The only race/gender issue that matters is that if Hillary was a man she would be just another senator and if Obama was white he would not be running for president.

The ProConPundit happens to like Elizabeth Edwards a lot. She is to be admired for using her limited time pursuing the dream of a lifetime for she and John. If she were running she might just put Hillary and Johnny to shame. Elizabeth has her work cut out for her. She says she can’t make John black. Perhaps. It might be easier to make Edwards black than it would to make him sincere--or electable.

Don't want to miss a ProConPundit post?

Simply e-mail ProConPundit@gmail.com and enter "AUTO UPDATE" in the subject line and receive an e-mail everytime there is a new post. You may say PLEASE EXPEDITE to your computer when sending the e-mail.

Should you be hapless enough to want to be dropped from the auto updates, please e-mail ProConPundit@gmail.com and enter "DROP" in the subect line. You may also wave your arms like a chicken and scream "go to hell" at the computer as you send the e-mail. That is entirely up to you.

My thanks to those who have enterred comments on the blog. While we have not exceeded our space for responses, we are off to a good start. Many of you e-mail me directly with your pros and cons for which I am grateful.

This 2008 election is most unique in that neither a president nor vice-president is seeking to be elected. Things seem wild and up for grabs which is great if it yields a good result. My hope would be for two excellent nominees so that we could choose from an outstanding Democrat & Republican. I also think President George W. Bush has done a great service to the country in choosing Dick Cheney as his vice-president in this respect. Whatever you think of Cheney, I find it beneficial to have a VP who has no presidential aspirations of his own. The opportunity for a clean slate as we will have next year is healthy. Lets use it wisely. 1976 was the last presidential election that neither a Bush or Clinton was on the ballot. Lets elect a Democrat or Republican next year, lets stick with a boomer, or go younger or older. But please, lets turn the page and wish a fond farewell to the Bushes and the Clintons.

Real City Reality Check for Winners and Wannabees

It is not for gusting winds that Chicago enjoys its identity as the Windy City, but for long-winded and boastful politicians. Seven Democratic candidates for president kept the epithet in tact last night as they debated before 15,000 Chicagoans with union cards at Solder Field. As if the hot air of the politicians were not enough, all of this took place amid sweltering heat and oppressive humidity.

The ProConPundit, much to the criticism of blog readers and advisors, has taken a couple of months off the monotonous drip by drip of the 2008 campaign. The Chicago event last night jump started my interest in this pre-mature political season. The debate was moderated by MSNBC’s sanctimonious, Keith Olbermann. The ProConPundit is no fan of Olbermann. His "Special Comments" on his cable show Countdown are billed as though they are something noteworthy when they are, in fact, tirades that seldom allow facts to be obstacles to his propaganda. The ProConPundit also resents his nightly on-air sign off, "Good night and good luck." That line was the nightly sign-off of CBS icon, Edward R. Murrow, who was the predecessor of Walter Cronkite, well before, incidentally, the time of the ProConPundit. To borrow Murrow’s line EVERY night is Olbermann’s signal that he has really nothing to say.

Olbermann learned last night that you may be able to tell town hall folk in New Haven or polite people in at USC Columbia to please withhold their applause or jeers–but not in Chicago. In a town where our architecture and our pizza matches our personalities: delicious, friendly, bold and rough edged, 15,000 union card holders would not be told when they could express themselves. It was a great debate. And the pols, none of them really Chicagoans, were not very long winded.

Hillary began her remarks with a touching word about how her late father, a die-hard Bears man would have been thrilled to have his daughter on the 10 yard line at Soldier Field. It was a nice touch. Obama, in trying to compete with Hillary for hometown status welcomed everyone to Chicago. That was gracious except that he was addressing 15,000 Chicagoans.

The problem with the Democratic field are the candidacies of Barack Obama and John Edwards. With each additional word that comes out of their mouths they show themselves to be increasingly silly and not competent to be president at this perilous time in our history. The trouble with them is that neither has a chance of beating Hillary Clinton yet they are taking up space and depriving top tier status to others who are, in fact, competent, and would stand a better chance of taking out Hillary.

Like them or not, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, and I like Biden and dislike Dodd, are competent, serious and ready to lead this nation. They don’t pop off with sound bites and simplistic solutions to complex problems as do Obama and Edwards. Biden, Dodd, and Clinton all rightly chided Obama for his dangerous and imbecilic blather about bombing Pakistan. Yes, he wants to bomb Pakistan, right after he has quiche with Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Meanwhile, he has both the audacity to hope and not answer a direct question honestly. He was asked whether he, if president, would welcome Barry Bonds to the White House. Can you say duck?

Barack Obama really seems to be clueless as to how much of a pawn he is of the Clinton machine. He is holding the space they want him to hold: keeping anyone else from taking a swipe at her. When the others have been picked away, they will squash him like a bug. Obama, incidentally, not a bad guy but the only serious election he has ever won was against Alan Keyes. He is in way over his head. Meanwhile, his wife, Michelle keeps doing interviews talking about what kind of First Lady she would be. Keep your day job, ma’am.

Those of you who know the ProConPundit know how much it pains me to say this because I really don’t like her and I really, really don’t want her to be the president. However, Hillary Clinton is running a brilliant campaign. When she stands up there with six men, excluding Obama and Edwards all serious, knowledgeable, and capable, she hold her own and rises above them. Obama will have future runs, this is not his time. Edwards is all hair. Dodds and Biden are blatantly campaigning to be Hillary’s running mate or Secretary of State, often agreeing with her during debates. Richardson and Kuchinich are serious and knowledgeable but going no where.

Put out of your head the notion of a Clinton-Obama ticket. Like her husband, her running mate will not be out of friendship or dues paying or who they most trust. It will, like everything else the Clinton’s do, be a totally self-serving political equation. She has no need of Obama on the ticket. She does not need any more minority than she already has in being a women and heavily favored by the black community. Sorry Biden and Dodd, you can’t delivery anything the Clinton’s don’t already have. Watch for Richardson to be her running mate–he brings regional and Latino appeal. If there is such a thing as a white, male, Southern, Democrat, I’d watch for that.

All of this said, at this time four years ago Howard Dean looked unbeatable and the presumed DOA John Kerry rose out of the ashes. So anything is possible. It is looking increasingly like a Democratic victory next year. However, at this time in 1991, President George H. W. Bush seemed so unbeatable that better known Democratic candidates like Gephardt and Gore decided to take a pass and let lesser known Paul Tsongas and Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and even lesser known Bill Clinton make fools of themselves. So the games are really just beginning. But Republicans, come on, you’re going to need to find a winner if you want to lead the way.

Sideshows: Gonzales-gate and Scotter-gate
Two issues that the ProConPundit believes are really detracting congressional and executive attention away from more important issues are Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the whole Valerie Wilson Plame/Scooter Libby ordeal. A recent Chicago Tribune editorial states well the folly of the Democrats to use the time and energy of their decisive victory last fall poorly. The ProConPundit believes that the political firings of politically appointed judges is a non story. Change the way judges are selected and I am with you. But when political hacks get dumped, move on.
As for Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby, here’s the deal. Valerie’s top secret CIA appointment was driving a desk at CIA offices. Her husband, the venerable ambassador, is a self declared drunken womanizer. Why should we care about this?

I think its peculiar for Libby to be charged and convicted when the underlying crime was never prosecuted. However, he did lie under oath. You may recall that no one was ever charged with the underlying crime of Watergate. No burglars ever went to jail. That didn’t save Dean, Colson, Haldeman, & Erlichman. To my dear, kindred, conservative friends: we either think perjury is a bad thing or we don’t. If we do, than anyone who is convicted of it should pay the price. If we don’t, then we shouldn’t have wanted Clinton put out of office. If we don’t think perjury is wrong, its okay with me. Let me know how you explain that to your children and grandchildren!

These side shows are distractions from Iraq, crumbling infrastructure and healthcare.

The Gonzales soap opera
Chicago Ttribune Editorial

August 1, 2007

The mystery that has captivated official Washington this summer -- well, OK, the Democrats in Congress -- is a tale of intrigue and conflict at the highest levels of government. What happened, the Dems want to know, when Alberto Gonzales paid a nighttime visit in 2004 to the hospital bedside of a groggy then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft?Gonzales, who was then White House counsel, apparently tried to persuade Ashcroft, under sedation and recovering from surgery, to reapprove a terrorist surveillance program run by the National Security Agency that was about to expire. Or so says a former top Justice official. Ashcroft wouldn't do the reauthorizing. All the while, other Justice officials reportedly were considering whether to resign over their legal objections to the program.Ever since word of the bedside visit surfaced in congressional testimony, Democrats have been baying like obsessed soap opera fans who missed an episode: They want to know what happened in that room, detail by detail.

They want to know, they say, because they suspect Gonzales may not have been completely truthful in his testimony about the program this year. But we suspect there are other reasons: They'd like to expose discord over the program within the Justice Department to bolster their skepticism over changes the president is urging in the surveillance law. And they'd like to further discredit Gonzales and force him to resign as attorney general.Last week, the saga of the bedside visit took a surprise twist. FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed to contradict Gonzales' testimony that the visit wasn't about the NSA surveillance program in question. Democrats went ballistic, suggesting Gonzales had deliberately misled Congress. Or did he? As The New York Times reported Sunday, it may be that Gonzales was telling the truth, that the visit concerned a different national security program.Now Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and three other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are asking the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to probe whether Gonzales lied to Congress about the NSA program. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said he also supports that move.And a group of Democratic House members is calling for an investigation and talking about the impeachment of Gonzales.Congress has every right to demand answers, to subpoena witnesses, as it has. It has plenty of power to probe the 2004 hospital bedside meeting, the firing of U.S. attorneys and anything else it pleases. And to tell the public what it learns.What Congress doesn't need -- what the country doesn't need -- is another special counsel with a blank checkbook and an open-ended agenda. Those who doubt that should revisit the legal bloodletting of the 1980s and 1990s, when special prosecutors ran amok, racking up huge bills and consuming lawmakers' time.That's why Congress allowed the federal law that authorized independent counsel investigations to lapse in 1999. Both Republicans and Democrats were frustrated with the cost, length and lack of accountability of investigations. How quickly lawmakers forget.The law expired, but the authority remained with the attorney general to appoint a special counsel when it is warranted.This case does not meet that test.We say this not to protect Gonzales. This page argued in April that Gonzales should resign for his incompetent administration of the office, particularly his handling of the firing of the federal prosecutors last year.But a special counsel? Impeachment? Do Democrats really think the larger public is up in arms because Gonzales may have gotten lawyerly cute in answering their questions? Get real.The Bush administration allowed politics to trump public interest at the Justice Department. Democrats are in danger of making the same mistake on Capitol Hill.

Fred Thompson is GOP Rorschach Test

Some people have told the ProConPundit that they didn’t realize I was this conservative or that conservative. How conservative am I? I could say I am a Joe Lieberman conservative or a John McCain conservative. Joe Lieberman, not withstanding his left wing crucifixion is actually pretty liberal. John McCain has never been conservative enough for the far right even though his voting record puts him in pretty good stead as a conservative. I could say I am a Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs conservative when it comes to immigration except that I think an imperfect bill is better than no bill at all. For the record, I am not a Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly conservative even while I think they are both great examples of how a small amount of work and even less talent can take one a long way in America. I am also not a neo-conservative. I consider Bill Krystal and Fred Barnes to be icons of neo-conservatism. I enjoy listening to them and reading them and appreciate their brilliance. I still don’t fit in on the spectrum with them. I consider the sharpest, brightest, most reliable, intelligent conservative to be George Will. I am reprinting his June 18 column on Fred Thompson below.

I like Fred Thompson. I love how he says so much with so few words on Law & Order. His toughness and shrewd ability, in the role he plays, to be able to sum up complexity with a few glib words impresses me. Fred Thompson does not merit serious consideration for president. He is one term U.S. Senator who left the senate, after accomplishing nothing impressive, because he was bored. He thought being on Law & Order was less boring and made more of a contribution to a meaningful life. Good for him. One term senators, like Thompson, like John Edwards and especially, Barack Obama lack the experience to be president any time let alone during a time of war and such upheaval. Thompson plays someone with gravitas on Law & Order...but he doesn’t have the bona fides to be president.

Of Tulips and Fred Thompson
By George F. Will
Newsweek June 18, 2007 issue -

Tulip mania gripped Holland in the 1630s. Prices soared, speculation raged, bulbs promising especially exotic or intense colors became the objects of such frenzied bidding that some changed hands 10 times in a day. Then, suddenly, the spell was broken, the market crashed—prices plummeted in some cases to one one-hundredth of what they had been just days before. And when Reason was restored to her throne, no one could explain what the excitement had been about. Speaking of Fred Thompson ...

Some say he is the Republicans' Rorschach test: They all see in him what they crave. Or he might be the Republicans' dot-com bubble, the result of restless political investors seeking value that the untutored eye might not discern and that might be difficult to quantify but which the investors are sure must be there, somewhere, somehow.

One does not want to be unfair to Thompson, who may have hidden depths. But ask yourself this: If he did not look like a basset hound who had just read a sad story—say, "Old Yeller"—and if he did not talk like central casting's idea of the god Sincerity, would anyone think he ought to be entrusted with the nation's nuclear arsenal? He is an actor, and, as a Hollywood axiom says, the key to acting is sincerity—if you can fake that, you've got it made.

This is, of course, all about another actor. Republicans have scrutinized the current crop of presidential candidates and succumbed to the psychosomatic disease Reagan Deprivation. It is, however, odd that many Republicans who advertise their admiration for Reagan are so ready to describe Thompson as Reaganesque because he ... what?

Because he, too, is a Great Communicator? Reagan greatly communicated ideas and agendas. What Thompson enthusiasts are smitten by, so far, is his manner. His deep-fried Southernness bears a strong resemblance to the Southwesternness of, say, Midland, Texas, and the country may have had its fill of that flavor. Thompson, a longtime lawyer-lobbyist who will run as a Washington "outsider," lives inside the Beltway, but outside Washington, in McLean, Va.

In their haste to anoint Thompson as another Reagan, the anointers are on the verge of endorsing what Reagan's disdainers have long argued—that Reagan was 99 percent charm and 1 percent substance. In 1968, when Reagan was 57, one of his disparagers, Norman Mailer, wrote that Reagan radiated a "very young, boyish, maybe thirteen or fourteen, freckles, cowlick, I-tripped-on-my-sneaker-lace aw shucks variety of confusion." This style of dismissal was common then, before Reagan spent another 14 successful years in demanding executive offices and before the publication of his letters and pre-presidential broadcasts. Since then, Reagan has undergone what Alistair Cooke, speaking of someone else, called "the four stages of the highbrow treatment: first, he was derided, then ignored, then accepted, then discovered." So far, Thompson is 99 percent charm.

When the resolutely uncharming John McCain ran in 2000, only four of his Senate colleagues supported him. Thompson was one. Today Thompson is John McCain without McCain's heroism, Vesuvian temper and support for the current immigration legislation. Although Thompson presents himself as a strict constitutionalist and an advocate of limited government, he voted for, and still supports, the McCain-Feingold law, which empowers the government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech about government.

Because this campaign started so early, it may be shrewd for Thompson to bide his time until his rivals seem stale, and then stride onstage. But once there, the latecomer should have some distinctive ideas he thinks will elevate the debate. In a recent speech, Thompson expressed a truly distinctive idea about immigration. Referring to the 1986 amnesty measure that Reagan signed into law, he said: "Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."

Kids, do not try to deconstruct that thought at home; this is a task for professionals. Thompson seemed to be saying that the suicidal maniacs besetting us are among us—are among the 12 million. And that although the maniacs are here, they want to kill innocents elsewhere ("around the world"), too.

Well, Reagan, too, had his rhetorical pratfalls, and Thompson, a former prosecutor, must know how to sift evidence and formulate arguments. But as Thompson ambles toward running, he is burdened by a reputation for a less-than-strenuous approach to public life, and that opaque thought he voiced about immigration looks suspiciously symptomatic of a mind undisciplined by steady engagement with complexities. If so, a sound you may soon hear from the Thompson campaign may be the soft "pop" of a bursting bubble.

Soprano’s ending eery, brilliant, and
just like the War on Terror

Other than the Sunday morning political shows, Meet The Press with Tim Russert, Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and The Chris Matthews Show, The ProConPundit doesn’t have much in the way of must-see-TV since NYPD Blue and Will & Grace folded. I have sporadically seen the Soprano’s over the years and always enjoyed it. My friends, Sue and Jim invited me for a BBQ Sunday including a huge, flat-screen, HD screening of the Soprano’s Finale. I loved it. The Soprano’s Finale broke the cardinal rule of insipid, superficial American television: it lacked closure. It required us to think and to imagine. Thank God.

Beyond the pondering and reflections by bona fide Soprano’s fans on the future of Tony and company, I think the Soprano’s finale offers us a metaphor on the War on Terror. An unconventional war, there will not be a surrender, a victory day or a wall for Mr. Gorbachev to tear down. We may reach a point where we think the worse is passed, but like the scene at Holsten’s Diner, you just never know who’s going to walk-in or whether they guy at the counter is nosey or a hit man. Not sure what’s worse: looking for closure in a TV show or trying to use the ending as a metaphor for a war! Anyway, great show.

Carter says Bush is worst president ever;

Gingrich hits lower: Bush is worst since Carter

Jimmy Carter recently came under fire for saying that the Bush (43) presidency’s foreign policy is the worst in American history. He later distanced himself from the remarks by calling them careless. This past week, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said that the Bush presidency has become the Republican version of the Carter presidency where nothing seems to go right. I’m not sure which remark is more offensive to President Bush. There are three points here that I think are important:
1) Gingrich’s remarks, whatever you think of him, are piercing and correct.
2) Carter’s remarks, whatever you think of him, are iercing and correct. Carter has the added advantage of multi tasking: he is pompous, hypocritical, right and wrong--all at once! Carter’s remarks have the same accuracy factor as Gingrich’s except that he can’t help but seem hypocritical given that his presidency was such a disaster. The ProConPundit, for the record, has great respect for President Carter and the work he has done since leaving The White House. He is the best former president in American history.
3) The real issue that the ProConPundit thinks merits reflection is the whole debate about the appropriateness of former presidents to speak out against current presidents or their policies?
There seems to be something of an unwritten rule that former presidents shouldn’t criticize their successors. I like the idea in the sense that they construct a very small club of people uniquely able to empathize with each other. When presidents of opposite parties and even ones who have been beat by their predecessors stand up for them, I think it speaks well of our common unity. So when they avoid the cheap and easy shots of bashing each other, I think that is virtuous. However, lets consider a few things:
1) Presidents Ford and Nixon never publicly criticized President Carter during his own disastrous time as president. Good or bad?
2) Presidents Truman and Eisenhower never spoke out publicly against President Johnson during his wrong escalation of the Vietnam war. If they had, perhaps the war would have ended sooner? What do you think they should have done?
3) Presidents Carter, Ford and Bush (41) never spoke out publicly against President Clinton during the impeachment. If they had, their voices may have swayed another five votes in the senate which would have removed Clinton from office. Should they have?
4) After President Ford’s death, we learned that he was against the Iraq War but would only tell the reporter that on the condition that no one know this until after his death. Had he made those views public at the time we went to war, would it have made a difference? Or would he have been ridiculed as Carter is? That was how much Ford honored the "code of silence?"

What do you think?

CNN Debates: First impressions solidifying

The ProConPundit doesn’t want to give these debates more attention than they deserve. As much as I love that the 08 season is off and running, it really is WAY too early and a lot is going to happen to shape the races. Both the Democratic & GOP debates were well done by CNN as was the Fox GOP debate. So far, MSNBC has put forth the worst of the debates. Incidentally, the Fox Democratic debate should be a great experience because Clinton, Obama, and Edwards won’t participate in them. In some goofball statement that Fox News is too conservative, the hypocritical top tier on the Democratic side won’t participate in it. That’s great news for Joe Biden, who the ProConPundit believes is the best that the Democrats have, and the other second tier candidates to get some oxygen. Clinton, Biden and Dodd are the only ones on the Democratic side with the experience and competence to serve as president. Since Dodd is a pompous hypocrite and Clinton is well, Clinton, the ProConPundit supports Biden. Biden was right on when he said that the next president will have zero margin for error and must be smarter than their advisors
Some other observations from the debates:
–Obama is not only pompous but obnoxious. He has no record of accomplishment and is heading for a fall.
–John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are playing strange roles in this race. He is pretending to be more liberal while she is pretending to be less. Edwards correctly chided the incredulously poor leadership of Clinton and Obama for voting against funding the troops. Edwards is something of an expert on the voting for being voting against quagmire. Clinton and Obama both voted against putting a time line on the war and on its funding. They both voted at the very last moment so that they could argue that their vote was a protest vote only made knowing that the bill would pass and, supposedly their vote didn’t count. Being president does not allow the luxury of protest votes and pandering votes–it requires leaders to say and do what they believe is right. Clinton and Obama have fallen below the competence and character test. Edwards, meanwhile thinks the war on terrorism is a bumper sticker. He is quickly earning the most likely to pander award but a leader and a president he is not.
–While all of the Democrats are against English as the official language in the US and all the Republicans are for it, Hillary was the only one to explain the difference. English is currently recognized as the national language, that is the language spoken by the majority of the people within a nation. The official language is a language that has been declared by a government to be the language of the governed nation. While the ProConPundit strongly supports immigration reform, I don’t see how the official language argument rises to a pressing issue with all of the other problems facing America.
–The ProConPundit was actually impressed with Hillary when she got in touch with her inner Goldwater Girl. Before she met Bill Clinton, she was a Republican and a supporter of Barry Goldwater, who lost to LBJ in 1964. Goldwater was the John the Baptist of the modern American conservative movement. As conservative as Goldwater was, he supported gays in the military saying: "You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight." All of America’s military allies allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. It was good of Clinton to resurrect Goldwater’s line. All of the Democrats support gays and lesbians serving openly while all of the Republicans oppose it. Can you say P-A-N-D-E-R?
– Former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) provided a reality check when he said that our economic prosperity of the 90's was due, in part, to raiding the SS trust fund

God postpones rapture to snatch Falwell,

asks for Reagan's advice.
Reagan asks God if He/She is better off now than 4 years ago.

The ProConPundit, while visiting Dallas, has learned that Almighty God was actually planning the rapture for Tuesday morning, May 15, but was in a quandary as to what to do with Jerry Falwell. Supposedly, when the rapture occurs, the saved will rise to heaven, leaving their clothes and running automobiles behind. Those who are not saved will have to endure seven years of tribulation and suffering. God was clear on not wanting Falwell in heaven but unsure about whether it was fair to inflict him upon those whose plates would already be full with seven years of suffering.

God asked the late former President Ronald Reagan what to do. The Gipper asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" God replied, "Why yes I am, as a matter of fact, now that Jerry Ford is here." Reagan quipped, "Well, you won't be able to say that four years from now if you let that self righteous, glutinous, hateful SOB into heaven. On the other hand, its not fair to the damned to pile on more agony with him. Even Democrats don't deserve that kind of suffering."

With that, God quickly dispatched Fal-well to hell telling him that it was nothing personal, but just one more chance to win one for the Gipper. In postponing the rapture, God has not set another date. Reagan and LBJ were encouraging God to have the rapture prior to the next set of presidential debates so that there would not be so many candidates on the stage. God is reported to have said that the rapture would not decrease the number of presidential hopefuls.

Below is the link for Christopher Hitchens candid remarks regarding Falwell's death. Hitchens is an outspoken anti-theist and columnist for Vanity Fair. The ProConPundit often disagrees with Hitchens but his piercing remarks about Falwell and general critique of organized religion is a great call to accountability.

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/05/16/christopher-hitchens-mourns-jerry-falwell-in-his-own-way/

McCain clinches debate:

shows himself as most competent GOP contender

While the ProConPundit is on location in Dallas, the GOP hopefuls convened in Columbia, South Carolina for a Fox News/USC sponsored debate. The real winner, first of all, was Fox News over MSNBC. Although the ProConPundit is a big fan of MSNBC, Fox News put together a much more substantiative debate forum than did MSNBC in their recent debates. Fox moderators Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and Wendell Goler were much better than Chris Wallace and Brian Williams. The questions were less biased and they had more time for candidates to respond.

Also FYI the ProConPundit obtained the religious identification of these candidates:
McCain is Episcopalian, Giuliani, Thompson and Brownback are Catholic, Romney is a Mormon, Huckabee and Hunter are Baptists, Tancredo is Presbyterian, Gillmore is a Methodist, and Paul is generic Protestant.

The major news about the debate is that the top tier of McCain, Giuliani and Romney is in tact but Romney’s performance fell short of McCain and Giuliani, with McCain the winner. (Bias alert: the ProConPundit’s endorsement is with McCain). Romney is a better looking John Kerry with a hotter, saner wife. Translation: slick flip-flopper. Go away.

Significant events in the debate:

1) Ron Paul provoked Rudy’s greatest moment of the night when he asked Paul to recant his remarks about how the US should consider the causes of hatred of Americans by the middle east. The ProConPundit CLEARLY and ABSOLUTELY does not believe that America deserved or provoked the 911 attacks. Ron Paul never said we did. He did say that we have built an embassy in Iraq that rivals the Vatican in size. He said that if China built such an edifice here, we would be concerned and distressed. He also pointed out the "blowback" to the US installation of the Shah of Iran in the 1970's which provoked the taking of American hostages. Those are valid points, Rudy overacted and was idiotic in using an intelligent, but *debatable* point as an opportunity to act like the only person who cares about the 911 victims. That is getting old, Rudy. You need more to be prez.

2) Another significant topic was about enhanced interrogation techniques. McCain, once again and clearly on top of his game, was the voice of statesmanship and American ideals when he denounced torture. As an American hero and a victim of torture himself, he was the sole voice of reason on this topic. McCain pointed out that water boarding was invented at the Spanish Inquisition and suggested America is capable of better forms of interrogation and stated the obvious that torture does not provide reliable information. Rudy once again was a boob endorsing torture. Romney took a duck on the question by saying that as president he would avoid circumstances that would cause attacks like 911 and hence the reason to interrogate people. Go away Romney, please!

3) Giuliani was grilled again on his pro-choice position. I think the pro-lifers who cannot vote for Giuliani should do as they must but the issue is resolved. He has answered where he stands. Whatever you think of him and of his position he is correct on this much: he is preferable to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we should unite on our common areas, and even given his pro-choice stand, abortions decreased and adoptions increased in New York while he was mayor. What the mayor has to do with that—the ProConPundit hasn’t got a clue!

Second Tier: As for the second tier, they were all more impressive than in the first debate with Mike Huckabee at the top of the pack, in my view. He also won the quip of the night saying that congress "spent money like John Edwards at a beauty parlor." Huckabee clearly held his own and had persuasive responses to his critics. Other great quips came as slams to Romney by Tancredo who trusts conversions that occur "on the road to Damascus not Des Moines." McCain threw a great line that was no joke: "I don’t change my positions in even numbered years or depending on which office I seek."

Of the rest of the second tier, Gillmore and Hunter were much better than the last debate but are still going nowhere–not even VP hopefuls. Thompson and Brownback were better than last time but unimpressive. Thompson won the contest for the most number of times he mentioned Reagan.

On Kucinich-Sharpton Tier: Tom Tancredo continues to be the GOP answer to Kucinich in trying to hold the party accountable. For Kucinich, it is on the war and Tancredo, immigration. He’s going nowhere but doing the country and the process a service to be in the race and give voice to this key issue that the top contenders would prefer to duck. Ron Paul, like Sharpton, is part prophet, part wacky.
Its McCain, folks.

Should Imus Make a Comeback?

Cast your vote in this poll of newsmax.com

http://www.newsmax.com/poll/imus/?PROMO_CODE=324E-1

Satan removes protective covering from Hell–
and Fal-well fell in.

Heaven and the Reign of God breathed a sigh of relief today when a dead Jerry Falwell was redeployed to hell.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell went a long way in life for a Virginia preacher who started a fundamentalist church in an abandoned bottling plant in 1956. His empire, Falwell’s that is, evolved into the 22,000 member Thomas Road Baptist Church, the ''Old Time Gospel Hour, '' and Liberty University which began as Lynchburg Baptist College. His greatest achievement, however, came from founding the so-called Moral Majority in 1979 as a response to Roe vs. Wade.

Through Moral Majority Falwell galvanized a block of voters now known as the religious right who helped elect Ronald Reagan president. These born-again Christians banned together to prevent re-electing born-again President Jimmy Carter in order to elect Ronald Reagan, a man who didn’t go to church and didn’t get along with his kids as the first president elected by the family values crowd. The ProConPundit intends no disrespect to Reagan. His family issues and non-religious identity were his own business. It does, however, shed light on the reality that while Falwell and his followers have spun Reagan as someone he wasn’t, the fact is that it is just another example of Reagan’s brilliant political acumen that he used Falwell and his block to his own purposes.

The ProConPundit respects Falwell as a man of conviction and appreciates his original issues: opposition to Roe vs. Wade and fighting in favor of optional prayer in public schools. Far beyond opposing gay rights, Falwell became a bombastic and pugnacious hater of gays and lesbians and those who care about them. His fate was sealed as a kook with his post 911 remarks that God had allowed or desired the 911 attack on the US by "removing His protective covering" as a result of gays and abortionists. His remarks were disgraceful and he became an embarrassing distraction from the Christian Gospel and the Savior for whom he claimed a personal relationship and life of service.

The ProConPundit prays that Falwell, in death, found a more loving and merciful God than he described.

See Fox News website for more on Falwell's death, including reaction by the gay community.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272632,00.html

Gay Community Reacts to Jerry Falwell's Death
LYNCHBURG, Va. — While some mourned Tuesday after Rev. Jerry Falwell died at 73, there were also those who took his death in a different light.
Falwell and his Moral Majority group widely condemned homosexuality, making him a controversial figure to many — especially the gay community.
"Jerry Falwell was one of the first and most visible advocates of a more-than-30-year-old movement to bring fundamentalist Christianity into the political sphere in ways that are particularly vicious and painful to millions of LGBT people around the country," read a press release by the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center's executive director.
“He blamed gays and lesbians for the tragedies of September 11. He fought to block civil rights for LGBT Americans," wrote Thom Lynch. “Perhaps this will signal the end of an era and allow us to find ways to live and co-exist in a pluralistic democracy."

Pre-mature reconciliation:
Episcopal Church accepts lying, cheating McGreevey into seminary

The ProConPundit has a lot of respect for the Church of England. It has offered much through the ages and has a lot to offer today. Its liturgy, architecture, music, art, and a way of being church that has been a comfortable place for people who have a hard time digesting the rigidity of the Roman church. That said, the Episcopal Church just got a tad too progressive for this progressive conservative in accepting former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey to New York’s General Theological Seminary.

McGreevey courageously came out of the closet and announced "his truth" as a gay American in August of 2004. His courage came just as his former lover and appointed New Jersey Homeland Security Director, Golan Cipel filed a sexual harassment suit against him. Whatever skills Israeli Cipel posessed, he had absolutely no credentials whatever to qualify for such a position.

The ProConPundit seldom quotes Jesse Jackson but Jackson was right when he once said (or was once right) "Either we believe in redemption or we don’t" I believe in redemption, clearly. Professional, ordained ministry is not a club for perfect people. However, competence and integrity and a love for God and the people of God are non negotiable.

McGreevey is in the middle of a very contentious divorce and without knowing anything about his former wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, its hard to not conclude that she has been treated miserably. Since they are still battling and her allegations against him are very serious, its boggles the mind to ponder what the admission requirements of General Theological Seminary consist of when seminary spokesman Bruce Park confirmed McGreevey's acceptance,acceptance, "We're very excited to have him...he has met all of the general admissions requirement." By anyone's estimation, McGreevey lied to his wife and family, cheated on her, and betrayed the public trust in exercising hideous judgement by appointing an utterly unqualified man as state director of homeland security based on pillow talk.

The ProConPundit respects and appreciates the sensible, pastoral and, well, Christ-like stand of the Episcopal Church on married clergy, the ordination of women and the acceptance and ordination of gays and lesbians. Accepting McGreevey, at this point of his personal controversies, however, is absurd.