The Commons at Paulie World

PEOPLE OF THE COMMONS, THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION!

I am issuing a call to action for the citizens of Paulieworld. Now, I know we all support the troops, and wish to do what we can to help them in the completion of their mission. Well, here is a way to help, there is a product called Bore Snake, which is a cleaning device for firearms. It is something they all can use, it’s a fairly straight forward implement, quick, and easy to use, one simply drops the weighted end down the barrel of the weapon, from the breech and pulls the Bore Snake, after treating it with cleaning solvent through the barrel. The Snake has a brass brush embedded in the cleaning cloth, and is a great, quick, one step cleaning tool. Further, there is a group on the internet taking donations for Bore Snakes to be sent to Soldiers, and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, one submits a donation and they buy the Snake and ship it to someone, or you can specify who you wish to get the Bore Snake. To check it out go to projectboresnake.org and all you need to help will be on the website. The Swamp Fox

Hard to believe we're only just now getting into the 2008 elections. Or, hard to believe we're actually having serious discussions about the 2008 elections. The "keep the incumbent" mentality of both major political parties has pulled the primary season all the way into College Bowl season. These anti-democratic antics continue to make money more important now than before, because the coffers have to be full before one can even get going. Let me be clear, however: I don't have a problem with money in politics. I have a problem with undisclosed money being in politics. I have a problem with organizations contributing money to politics without the consent of their membership. I have a problem with corporations directly contributing to elections, but I have no problem with a trade association doing so (I know that only means the corporations will create shadow associations, but it does mean, then, that the association will have to canvass its members before contributing.) But I don't have a big problem with money in politics. As we say in Paulie World, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of free speech." Certainly, political free speech is the clearest intention for the First Amendment.

(At the other end of the "keep the incumbent" spectrum, of course, are the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance" Reform laws, which successfully has prohibited free political speech by the citizens of this country. I just find it hard to believe that the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...." Imagine that, "Congress shall make no law." The two major outcomes of the McCain - Feingold have been the suppression of the individual's voice, and the huge injection of unaccountable soft money to partisan attack groups. I may not run an ad in the newspaper, or on a billboard, within 60 days of an election in which I state: "I served with Wes Clark back in the day, and I think he is a smiling rattlesnake," yet MoveOn and the others (I understand that the Swift Boat Vets are in this group) can accept millions and millions from George Soros to run any silly thing that pops into their heads. You folks who think McCain is a friend to we citizens had better think twice. Here's Mark Levin on the Keating Five. (And don't come back to me after reviewing the facts that McCain was found by the Senate ethics committee to have broken no law of the United States. Quis custodiet ipso custodes? Huh?

Tough now to remember how it used to be, when early summer (Stanley Cup season) decided primaries. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy won the California primary on June 5, and the expectation that the upcoming New York primary would be a dogfight. (Only 17 states had primaries in 1968; there were 30 that had them in 1976. Most states had some sort of caucus. I somewhat miss those days of smoke-filled rooms and conventions that meant something.) I thought we had much better candidates who were able to focus on more weighty issues. Besides, it's only the partisans who vote in primaries anyway, right? Today's beauty pagent is already six months too long before the primaries; getting the primaries out of the way by March is the major parties' way of eliminating competition from the incumbents, coupled with the desire to turn the substance of a political debate into pabulum. The substantive discussion of issues has become an avoidance of making mistakes, and the general debate has devolved into background noise until the party attack machines find some bomb to drop in order to make the other guy look like a sleaze.

Imagine Lincoln getting elected now with a crazy wife, whose family were slaveholders, and whose sons fought and died for the cause of the insurrection. Makes poor W's 25-year old DUI bust seem pale by comparison.

Ugh. Political primaries. Even reading our old reliables over at Real Clear Politics, Free Republic, and, of course, PoliPundit, seems drab and tired.

Well, we'll be back up to our old tricks soon enough. Mr. Adams, Gen'l Putnam, and myself have started cranking up the sophistry machine with a string of emails with 2008 predictions. Stay tuned.

Just to go on record, I predict that the next POTUS will be - Mitt Romney.

Here's my reasoning. Romney will likely win Iowa and NH. He has plenty of his own money. Evangelicals just won't support Rudy. Thompson just doesn't seem to be exciting anyone. McCain has no chance because of his immigration position. So Mitt is going to get the GOP nomination.

Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. And I still think Hillary's negatives are too high to be elected. Even though Hillary puts Ohio into play, Romney puts Michigan into play. And Mitt looks and sounds the part.

I think Giuliani would be a good President, but he is not a conservative. He loses the social values voters. I think Romney can get the values voters. And I think he wins Michigan, making it pretty difficult for any democrat to win. That being said, I have not yet decided who I will vote for in the primary. I will vote for the Republican nominee in the general election, whoever it is.

The Democrats have some pretty scary candidates on their side, and frankly, as much as she turns my stomach whenever I hear her speak, Hillary is the least scary. Hillary will screw up the country economically and socially, but on the foreign policy front I believe that she actually gets the Islamic fanatic threat – which is why the Kos idiots are so unhappy with her. Obama and Edwards are a joke on foreign policy as well as domestic policy.

In response to Mr. Adams:

My dad asked me last Christmas dinner who I thought would win in 2008 and I gave him the same answer, for a lot of the same reasons.

Conceding that (for the sake of the argument) it's Hillary vs Romney, whose background will rouse more prejudice in the voters, Hillary the leftist woman or Romney the whacko Mormon? A lot of people are going to be voting on that issue. The press, of course, will point to all the other woman leaders out there in the world - especially Thatcher and Meir - and at the same time point back to the troubles the Mormons and Utah had in their relationship with the US.

There was a front-page article in Time or Newsweek seven or ten years ago praising the Mormons for raising their kids the right way; I'm sure by next spring, Time will have forgotten that and only focus on the polygamists and gun nuts. (Hey, Swamp Fox, was Ruby Ridge in Idaho? Or New Mexico? Where?) (NB: Let's not forget that the Oklahoma City bombing was a protest againstRuby Ridge: unfortunately that was a GHWB administration, not a Clinton one, if I remember correctly.)

If Hillary is the candidate, I will bang the Waco & posse comitatus drum as loudly as I can.

I really don't think there's much of a chance of Hillary not being the candidate. She (and her minion, Rahm Emanuel) have had way too much control in disbursing funds to other candidates not to have coopted them and their organizations. Her status as a front-runner has none of that Willy Stark hellfire that Dean had in the winter of 2003 - 2004, although I would say that her administration would have all of that Willy Stark corruption.

Hey, good to be back.

There has been so much noteworthy activity in the political world lately, and I am now finally becoming interested in what a few of the dozens of Presidential candidates have to say. Thompson has been a big yawn. McCain will always be McCain. I like the war hero McCain very much, however....

Just a few random comments here prompted by your message, (in no particular order):

As I recall, and for what it's worth, the Oklahoma City bombing was a protest against both the Waco massacre and the siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Yes, this was during the GHWB administration, in 1992.

Regarding Waco, I will never forget watching the seige on live TV, shocked that the federal government (meaning the Clintonista Regime) ordered a military attack against American citizens. If I recall correctly, the first vehicle to breach the compound was from an Army Reserve engineer unit. I tried to imagine a Connecticut National Guard unit being ordered to assault a religious cult in the woods of Danielson (or East Hampton, whatever...).

Two agents had been killed, but the eventual response was beyond comprehension, and no one was held accountable. This is highly relevant today, as Co-Presidents Clinton placed all blame on Janet Reno, who was Hillary's choice (albeit her third choice) for AG. Reno was never punished, and went on to abuse the AG's office to defend the regime's perpetual scandals. We need to remind voters who President Hillary will appoint.

Romney will be a much stronger candidate than a lot of people think. I agree that early primary wins will increase name recognition and he will respond well to that. I had the pleasure to meet him earlier this year after a speech in Greenwich. He is very bright and charismatic, and is very likeable.

Romney is a big name in Michigan, which will be pivotal in the national election. He's winning the pro-lifers, who can sink Rudy either in the primary or in the national election by not showing up.

I'm still leaning toward Rudy because of leadership. Also, he has the potential to bring in several big states that otherwise might not be in play for the GOP. The September 11th factor weighs heavy in NY, NJ, PA, VA and CT. Many of the people in these states were already aware of Rudy's transformation of NYC.

No matter who the GOP candidate is, he will be attacked by the left-wing media, which have been covering up for Hillary for 15 years. Now they are mostly ignoring her illegal fundraising, as well as her 50% negatives -- unprecedented for a major party's presumptive nominee!

Rudy is the best candidate to go head-to-head against her, but he might not get the chance. I know a couple of Romney's insiders and they tell me that he is the most competitive man they've ever met. He will be a great candidate.