Robert George takes on the issue of some ostensibly pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals supporting Obama based on an alleged pro-life element to Barack Obama and notes, among other things, that Obama is so extreme in his pro-abortion position that he refused to back a bill providing for research into non-embryonic stem cell research:

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President’s restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents’ decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ”clone and kill” bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

Why would Barack Obama, father of two delightful girls, be like this? Either he’s a monster in disguise, or he’s just ignorant. I go with ignorant – and, oddly, I go with this because, once again, I feel a rather strong affinity with Barack Obama. We are, after all, of the same generation – neither Boomer nor Gen X (though, technically, we were both born during the Baby Boom – but so close to the tail end of it that we failed to develope a Boomer view of the world). We are, in a lot of ways, alike – I’d really like to correspond with him in private, because I think both of us would find the exchange invaluable. But there is a difference between us – and the difference is in practical knowledge of how actual people live.

You see, we were both sheltered in our early lives – Vietnam ended when we were little, the threat of nuclear war just wasn’t as ever-present as it seems to have been in the 50’s and 60’s, there was no draft looming at the end of our high school days, you could have sex without worrying about dying, marijuana was harmless fun, cocaine a more powerful stroke of harmless fun, smoking was still ok, as was drinking (including drinking and driving in those pre-MADD days). Sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll was the order of the day. Life was a breeze. And then Obama went to college and I joined the Navy, and there our paths of life started to differ.

As I got to deal with real people in their native setting (as it were), Obama got to deal with theoretical people while he sat in an ivory tower. He came out of his formative years and started to organize people – I came out of mine and started agitating for them to be left un-organized by outsiders and looking after their own affairs. And here is the crucial part – if you set out to organize people you have to view them as lesser beings than yourself; if you set out to battle on their behalf, you have to see them as your equals.

Once you start viewing people as so many blocks of wood for you to fashion into a new governing paradigm, it is but a step to start viewing them as expendable…and thus there is no problem with even the most pro-abortion position. Obama isn’t evil in this (though he does evil he doesn’t intend), he just hasn’t thought the matter through and is incapable – at the moment – of doing so because he lacks a frame of reference which would bring him to the understanding that morally – which is the only place it matters – he is no better than the just-fertilized embryo. Barack Obama is Barack Obama – the wise, knowledgeable leader who can bring us all to the promised land…and he’ll do it because he loves us…but his love is the condescending, false love of the self-absorbed. We are to be made better, ultimately, because he, Barack Obama, can’t stand it if we don’t reflect well upon him. America is to match Obama’s expectations, not Obama to match his duties as one, small person in a grand story of people past, present and future with none other than God knowing the full truth.

There is a fine line between folly and evil – a fool harms mostly himself, the evil person harms mostly others. Obama, cut off from reality, has been playing quite a fool – and has been played for a sucker by people who have consciously made the decision to be wicked. And, also, much evil has been done in Obama’s name – how much of it with Obama’s full knowledge and consent? That we don’t know – but we’d best not find out while Obama is in the White House.

Nevada Pundit cuts through a lot of the nonsense being said – especially on the left – about what caused our financial meltdown. The free market works – the government-managed market fails. Always and all the time.

I thought that MoveOn couldn’t work with Obama without running afoul of campaign finance laws? Thinking this, I found this e mail rather interessting:

Dear fellow MoveOn member,

My friends tell me I’m addicted to politics. But I live in Oklahoma, one of the reddest of red states, so even though I’m glued to the news, I’ve never felt like I could do very much.

Last week, that changed. I got a MoveOn email inviting me to drive to a swing state and volunteer. My husband and I jumped at the chance, and signed up to drive to Missouri.

I can tell you firsthand: it feels great to be on the front lines. It’s energizing and humbling at the same time. And when you talk to undecided voters, you realize what a difference you’re making.

My husband and I are going back every weekend until the election. Could you join us, by signing up to drive to a swing state to volunteer for Obama this weekend? The Obama campaign particularly needs volunteers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania this Saturday—so if you can, please click below to sign up!…

…Our 10-year-old son is the love of our life. We’re trying to do everything we can for his future. It’s so important to us to get Obama into office instead of McCain—for his sake.

My husband owns a small painting company here, and rarely takes a day off. But this past Saturday, he dropped off our son at my mother-in-law’s house and drove with me to an Obama office in Missouri. Everyone we met was really nice and kind. We met other MoveOn members and Obama staffers, and then went outside to knock on doors and meet undecided voters.

One older woman we met hadn’t decided whether or not to vote. But it meant a lot to her that we’d come all that way just to talk to her. By the time we left, she seemed like she’d made up her mind to vote for Obama!…

…Thanks for all that you do.

–Tamika Sumner, MoveOn member

Tahlequah, Oklahoma (emphasis added)

Doesn’t this sort of thing constitute an in-kind donation to the Obama campaign? Nothing in the email about helping anyone other than Obama (for the children, of course). Anyone out there expert enough in this area of law to render a judgement?

Excellent short hand on the Obama fundraising scandal (you remember that, right? The scandal before the voter fraud/ACORN scandal broke…Obama is starting to make Bill Clinton seem honest in contrast):

The Obama campaign has failed to release the names of donors responsible for approximately half of his campaign’s $426.9 million: those who have contributed less than $200.

In addition, press reports allege Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has accepted illegal online campaign contributions from this category of donors, which include funds allegedly donated by foreign nationals.

The Obama campaign appears to be selectively complying with campaign finance laws. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) should immediately investigate allegations of foreign campaign contributions made to the Obama campaign possibly corrupting this presidential election.

The McCain campaign, by contrast, has made its entire donor database available online.

In the interest of transparency the Obama campaign should publicly list the source of every single campaign contribution. The American people deserve to know for certain that all campaign finance laws are being followed.

It is near certain that Obama is not following campaign finance laws – if he were, he would have been placing his donor list in the public square from day one. The failure to do so indicates that Obama wanted to violate the laws, and then conspired to violate the laws. Only a full scale criminal investigation in to Obama, the Obama campaign, the DNC, associated leftwing groups such as MoveOn and ACORN and the shadowy rich people who have set this all afoot can tell us for certain what has gone on and who needs to go to jail. We know our leftwing friends simply will not care about this – though I deny any assertion they may make that they don’t know or aren’t sure. Only those being maliciously blind to common sense can be other than horrified by what the Obama campaign and the overall left have been up to. You can sing and dance your way around this one all you want lefties, but your loyalty is being given to a man who really is taking the thuggery and corruption of Chicago Democratic politics on to the national stage.

McCain and Palin, on the other hand, offer the stark opposite of all Obama stands for – Obama stands for the left, McCain stands for core American values; Obama stands for government control, McCain stands for individual liberty; Obama stands for corrupt business as usual, McCain stands for reform. On and on it goes – and the choice will soon by made by the American people; to go with the honest patriot, or go with the dishonest tool of the anti-American left.

Fascinating possible backlash from the judicial activism imposing gay marriage piecemeal upon the United States – from NRO’s The Corner:

Connecticut insiders are buzzing about the possible consequences of Friday’s same-sex marriage decision for Question One on the ballot Nov. 4—a call for a state constitutional convention. (See www.ctconcon.com for more info).

Connecticut, unlike California, has no direct initiative and referendum process. But in a unique feature of the Connecticut process, voters are asked every 20 years whether or not they wish to convene a constitutional convention, which would then have the authority to propose constitutional amendments to voters.

By an accident, or an act of God, the Connecticut court decision imposing same-sex marriagecame down less than three weeks before the once-in-twenty-years chance Connecticut voters have to call for a constitutional convention—this Nov. 4.

Question One asks: “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the state”?

A broad coalition of groups, including the Federation of Connecticut Taxapyer Organizations, eminent domain groups energized by the Kelo decision, and even some Green Party spokespeople have expressed support for the idea.

In the Sept. 29, Hartford Courant, for example, Mike De Rosa, head of the Green Party in Connecticut, told the newspaper, “We shouldn’t be afraid of democracy.” “A lot of conservative groups are looking at it from their own ideological paradigm,” De Rosa said. “We see it as an opportunity to free the system, to open it up to more choices and more voices. That’s very frightening to people.”…

…On Friday, after the court ruling, , the Catholic Conference in Connecticut joined the list of groups urging Yes on Question One.

“This decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court also raises a very real concern about the infringement on religious liberty and freedom of speech with the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage,” the Connecticut bishops’ declared, “The real battle in this court case was not about rights, since civil unions provide a vast number of legal rights to same-sex couples, but about conferring and enforcing social acceptance of a particular lifestyle; a lifestyle many people of faith and advocates of the natural law refuse to accept.”

For a while there the electoral dice seemed to be rolling for McCain and the GOP, and then they started to roll for Obama – so much so that even some yellow conservatives jumped on the Obama bandwagon…but then the financial crisis started to calm down, ACORN’s voter fraud jumped into the public square, McCain and Palin came out swinging, the 2006 poster-boy for GOP malfeasance has boomeranged on the Democrats and smeared them even worse than Foley did the GOP…add in things like insane rulings by leftist courts in California and Connecticut, and it seems that the electoral dice are starting to love John McCain, again.

The only rational prediction one can make for Campaign ’08 is that it has been, is and likely will remain unpredictable. A couple days ago the DNC was floating stories in the MSM about how Congress would gather after Obama’s triumphant victory and start passing his legislative agenda even before he took the oath…now the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will spend some days trying to defend their defense of Tim Mahoney…a nice, juicy scandal of sex and misused taxpayer dollars. Now, the GOP won’t benefit from an MSM megaphoning Democratic corruption and difficulties, but methinks the cumulative effect of Obama’s background and inexperience, Congressional ineffectiveness and leftist/Democratic corruption could start to sway some people – make them, just perhaps, opt for the candidates in the race – McCain and Palin – who have a track record of going after corruption even when its on their own side.

And will accelerate, if Obama wins, given the sorts of judges he’ll appoint:

Two students filed a federal lawsuit this past Monday against the publicly-funded College of Alameda alleging that school officials at the California school threatened to expel them for praying.

The events prompting the lawsuit took place in December, 2007, a press release from the Pacific Justice Institute reports.

That month, student Kandy Kyriacou visited an instructor to give her a Christmas gift. Kyriacou found the instructor alone in her shared office. When the instructor indicated she was ill, Kyriacou offered to pray for her.

The instructor bowed her head and Kyriacou began to pray. They were then interrupted by another faculty member, Derek Piazza, who entered the room and said “You can’t be doing that here!”

Kyriacou left to join her friend and fellow student Ojoma Omaga. Piazza followed Kyriacou and repeated his rebuke. The students related that they were surprised by his intimidating behavior.

Three days before Christmas, both students received letters notifying them of the college’s retroactive “intent to suspend” them. While school policy requires such letters to state factual bases for the charges, the letter only vaguely accused the students of “disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience . . . persistent abuse of college employees.”

An administrative hearing reportedly found Kyriacou’s prayer worthy of discipline and threatened suspension or expulsion for further infractions.

The students turned to the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) for assistance. PJI attorneys attempted to resolve the situation through demand letters, but the college did not respond.

PJI local affiliate attorneys Steven N. H. Wood and Christopher Schweickert made a final demand that college officials rescind disciplinary letters and acknowledge the students’ right to pray, but the college refused. On Monday, Wood, Schweickert, and PJI staff attorneys filed a federal lawsuit.

“It’s outrageous,” PJI President Brad Dacus stated. “Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well – with her consent – earn a suspension? This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court.”

People like Piazza are legion in this country – little sneaks just waiting for a chance to denounce their neighbors for thought crimes. Think it can’t happen in a democratic society? Well, look what happened to Mark Steyn in Canada; he was hauled before a kangaroo court when someone complained that his writings offended them…he won the case, but likely only because of negative publicity. Get Obama in office and the mis-named “fairness doctrine” will ensure that cases like this don’t get widely known in the public, while Obama-appointed leftist judges dismiss out of hand cases brought on matters of religion and other liberty.

There is a lot at stake in this election – the left is playing for the whole deal; they feel they can win it all, and they are determined that once they win they will ram through their worldview. We’ve only got one option to preserve the United States from kook-left domination – and that is election John McCain President of the United States.

Its been the subject of a relentless campaign of lies and fear-mongering by the Obama campaign (if you’re not in a Battlegroun State, count yourself lucky – seems like you can’t spend 20 minutes watching TV or listening to the radio without an Obama ad attacking McCain’s health care plan; come November 4th, I beg of you!) – but, meanwhile, the truth is (as usual) different from whatever Obama happens to be saying at the moment, as the Weekly Standard points out:

Over the past few weeks, in a series of television ads, in stump speeches, and in the presidential and vice presidential debates, the Obama campaign has sought mightily to attack John McCain’s proposal for health care reform. It’s vehemence and tenacity have been striking, especially given how little McCain himself has actually had to say about his plan. Ironically, their misleading critiques actually hint at the strengths of McCain’s proposal, and point to the serious vulnerabilities in Obama’s own approach to health care politics.

At the core of the McCain health care agenda is the most important conservative policy innovation since welfare reform: the transformation of the benefit now given to employer-provided health coverage into a health insurance tax credit made available to all. For almost 70 years now, the federal government has given a significant tax preference to employer-provided health insurance. When your employer takes money out of your wages to purchase coverage on your behalf, the money is not counted as part of your gross income, so you don’t pay any taxes on it. But if you purchase insurance yourself, not through an employer, the money you use to do so gets taxed.

This makes employer-provided insurance vastly more appealing and places a serious burden on those to whom it is not available or who prefer coverage other than what their company offers. It has prevented the development of a genuine market in individually purchased health insurance and therefore artificially keeps insurance costs high. It has kept consumers from having a clear sense of what their health care costs, and so has inflated the price of care itself as well as the price of coverage. It has severely reduced the options available to families, making it more difficult to find insurance that meets their particular needs. It has tied health insurance to employment, leaving people uncertain about career moves and insecure about the future of their coverage. And it has vastly increased the number of Americans without health insurance, since not every business can afford to provide coverage, and those whose employers don’t offer it cannot readily find affordable options on their own.

And yet, for all its troubles, the employer-based system is quite popular with the people it serves. Nearly 90 percent of them, in a recent Kaiser Foundation poll, rated their insurance as good or excellent. They would certainly like to see costs go down and to feel more secure about their coverage, but they do not want their existing coverage taken away from them. This obviously poses an enormous challenge for reformers: How can the problems of the current system be addressed without displacing the millions of Americans who are satisfied with it?

The McCain solution is to change the incentives for consumers, but not for employers, so that people find themselves with more options, but are not forced out of their current insurance arrangement. Rather than exempt from taxation all the money used by employers to buy insurance, he would treat it as income but then provide individual taxpayers (regardless of how they obtain their coverage) with a credit that more than covers the taxes. The effect of this, from the point of view of individuals and families, would be to make employer-provided coverage just one option among many.

Do read the whole article – but central to McCain’s plan is that the people will be more and more able to decide what is best for themselves and their families. No need for a complex, expensive and ultimately self-destructive government run and/or mandated program…just allow people the flexibility to figure out what their health care needs are and then allow them the largest number of choices possible to fill those needs. Once again we see the grand paradox of American politics – the supposedly “pro-choice” side of the aisle is desperate to keep people locked into mandated programs, while the people supposedly all about control are on the side of allowing people the widest possible personal choice. As I’ve noted in many places, we live in an Age of Lies, and “pro-choice” is a many-faceted lie.

At any rate, there are many things needing reform in this nation and in John McCain and Sarah Palin we will have a chance to enact reforms. If, on the other hand, we elect Obama then we’ll get a man who will mandate more things, spend more money, raise more taxes, fail to do anything which might harm the income of the trial lawyers (so, if you’re thinking that Obama’s plan would in any way, shape or form limit the amount of malpractice a doctor can be forced to shell out, think again) and, in the end, make matters worse because they don’t attack the real problem with health care, which boils down to a lack of consumer choice and insurance and medical competition to bring down prices and improve services (please note, also, that Obama proposes to make health care “affordable” – what that means is that the price won’t go down, because that might harm trial lawyer income and DNC fundraising, but if he has to bankrupt the nation to provide health care to people who could better get it on their own, then so be it, as far as Obama is concerned…we have to have our priotities straight, and any Democrat will tell you that means advancing the power and wealth of Democrats, come what may. Ok, so they won’t actually tell you that, but actions speak very loud and we do detect a pattern here).

Courtesy of Mother, May I Sleep With Treacher? – its a joke, but its also all too true:

McCain Refers to Obama as “My Opponent”

By Every Reporter Who Still Has a Job

Every Newspaper in America

Page 1 above the fold

Media Bubble, Oct. 8 — John McCain’s bid for the Oval Office suffered another stunning blow yesterday when the Arizona senator referred to Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, as “my opponent.” The campaign-shattering remark came during a vicious, Hitlerian speech before an audience of drooling right-wing drones in one of those states in the middle, possibly rectangular.

“I believe that we should do things one way,” McSame sneered, his shrunken, twisted body and hideous visage producing overwhelming revulsion in all sane people who beheld him. “But my opponent feels we should do things a different way.”

In a comment appearing simultaneously on every single blog, newspaper site, and message board on earth, a number of private individuals completely unattached to the Obama campaign replied: “On behalf of concerned Christian conservatives everywhere, this is the sort of eliminationist rhetoric we’ve come to expect from the evil, cancer-riddled liar John McPain. We get it, old man: Obama opposes you, therefore he must be destroyed. This sort of disgraceful hate-mongering might be a big hit at your next cross-burning, assuming you live that long, but America knows better. The NVA should have finished the job, you miserable piece of garbage…”

That pretty much covers the tenor of MSM coverage and mindless, Obama-bot blog commentary. The universality of the hatred being directed at the moderately conservative John McCain shows both the determination of the elite prevail and the level of leftwing poison which has infected the Democratic party and the MSM ever since Howard Dean invited the Michael Moores of the world to come on in and have a ball. Even supposing that Obama were the better candidate, there is still no need for the slanderous and hate-filled attacks which have been launched against McCain and Palin – but the junior-league Leninists of the American left want to graduate to Advanced Leninism, and thus no lie is too disgusting and no level of hatred too intense.

People blinded this much by unreasoning hatred are headed for a fall – they might triumph for a moment, but it will be a hollow victory and, at any rate, I expect that the spluttering rage they are showing – which grows more intense even as Obama allegedly rises in the polls – will eventually cause all of them to self-destruct, from Obama right on down to the most mindless teenager using Daddy’s computer to post nasty comments on Blogs for Victory.

Well, actually, he says he’ll whip Obama’s “you know what” (and watch for lefties to say this is racist because slaves where whipped…even though Obama has never been a slave, and neither were any of his ancestors – Obama having, as far as can be determined, no African-American blood whatsoever):

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) – Republican John McCain vowed Sunday to “whip” Democratic rival Barack Obama’s “you-know-what” when the two presidential candidates meet Wednesday in their final televised debate.

McCain made that pledge as top advisers said he is weighing new economic proposals to help the nation weather the financial crisis. The Arizona senator refused to answer a reporter’s question Sunday about what plans he might be considering.

Addressing several dozen volunteers at his campaign headquarters outside Washington, McCain promised some of his signature “straight talk” about the state of the race. National and many battleground state polls have shown him trailing Obama amid the deepening market crisis.

“We’re a couple points down, OK, nationally, but we’re right in this game,” McCain said to cheers. “The economy has hurt us a little bit in the last week or two, but in the last few days we’ve seen it come back up because they want experience, they want knowledge and they want vision. We’ll give that to America.”

McCain said he and running mate Sarah Palin would continue campaigning hard in the three weeks left before Election Day, in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. The two planned a joint appearance Monday in Virginia, a Republican stronghold turned battleground this time.

“We’re going to spend a lot of time and after I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we’re going to be going out 24/7,” McCain said.

Our Democratic friends are, of course, advising us to cut it out, admit that the race is over and leave off the questions about Obama’s background, character and policy proposals…they are doing this because of that well-known Democratic concern for the well being of the GOP. And I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for you, if you believe that. One thing we can be certain of is that if the Democrats want us to stop doing something, we should do as much of it as we can.

As for me, its into the battle full throttle – and without even the slightest thought of or concern about the outcome. Our duty, fellow GOPers, is to battle for our side…to do the best we can, each day, to convince our fellow Americans that they should turn to us to provide the leadership our nation needs in these troubled times. If we do that, and turn the result over to God’s will, then whatever the outcome we’ll rest content in the knowledge of a job well done. So, have at it – stout hearts!

Victor Davis Hanson on those few, sad conservatives who have decided to pander to The One in hopes of getting some crumbs from the MSM table in return:

…Obama, as I have said ad nauseam, has brilliantly prepped the battlefield to such a degree that a Farrakhan endorsement or surrogates calling Palin a quasi-Nazi or a bimbo, or smearing McCain as near senile is irrelevant; yet one screamer in a crowd of tens of thousands is proof of McCain’s and Palin’s racism and hatred.

Again, most conservatives know this paradox, but for some, being outraged as the conservative voice of reason, at McCain’s supposed low road ensures a CNN spot, or some future rehabilitation during the expected Obama regnum of the next eight years. I think should I write a column praising Obama’s wit, taste in books, and metrosexuality I would be dubbed principled rather than cynical, ‘even-handed’ rather than self-serving, and a maverick rather than toadish.

Yet for a self-acclaimed conservative to vote Obama would mean that higher taxes, larger government, more entitlements, more of a UN-centered foreign policy, dialogue with an Iran, less coal,oil, and nuclear energy production at home, more “oppression” studies and “reparations”, leftish Supreme Court judges, open borders (I could go on) were the truly conservative positions, or perhaps suddenly truly the ‘right’ positions.

And as far as ethics goes, in fact, a cursory review of the past Obama campaigns would reveal a ruthlessness never seen in any of McCain’s efforts. Obama’s record is far more left than McCain’s is far right. Obama the healer has proven to be the most partisan in the Senate, McCain one of the most bipartisan.

But to believe that truth would be–if we remember that scene in Tolkien’s Two Towers–to trust the grating harsh voice of Gandalf detailing the dangers of Saruman rather than the mellifluous charm of the latter who in soothing tones outlines his own victimhood.

It is all of them against us – we have McCain, Palin and Joe and Jane Average – they have Obama and all of the elites, including a selection of the Manhattan and DC conservative elite. And just like now everyone is claiming credit for the surge, now that its worked, so will all of these people jump back on our side and say they were always with us, if McCain pulls out the win…or if, after four disasterous years of Obama, Palin wins the White House for the GOP and conservatism.

I, too, won’t pander – though I’m not nearly as important in the world as people like Hanson. Just a little blogger, though I do have a mind for a lot of fun and a one in a million shot for 2010. President Bush has been a great President; John McCain will make a great President – so I raise my banner and so I battle on in confidence of victory.