We thought that the genre was extinct,  but the show business geniuses behind World Wrestling Entertainment have revived a controversial style of character from past seasons.

Without further adieu, WWE presents its 2010 U.S. Senate candidate in Connecticut, Linda McMahon...a/k/a "the Wild RINO". 

(the Wild RINO argues with loving hubby, Vince McMahon)

Now those familiar with the WWE know that often it creates "good guys" and "bad guys" and the various wrestlers get to change roles as the season progresses.  Who can forget when Sergeant Slaughter portrayed a turncoat when paired with the Iron Sheik?  

Well, central casting has decided that long time WWE CEO Mrs. McMahon now gets to play the role of a conservative Republican in her bid against Senator Chris Dodd.

I got her glossy brochure in today's mail. It mentions she ran a 500 employee NYSE company--but doesn't mention which one.  OK, that a bit dodgy. don'tcha think ?

And McMahon's slick mailer pledges undying opposition to socialized medicine and adamant devotion to the concept of limited government.

Unfortunately, a quick look at Mrs. McMahon's actual record suggests this is as realistic as the plot lines for this week's RAW telecast  

I mean, of all the people whom she could have been a regular contributor to, you think a true believer in conservatism might have excused themselves from writing huge checks every election cycle to Rahm Emanuel?  

And Connecticut liberals are gleeful that Mrs. McMahon contributed over $10,000 to the DCCC, money which went directly into making Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.  (Nancy Pelosi held a closed fundraiser in Hartford Friday... wonder if Mrs. McMahon wandered by with another check?)

And please don;t think this was all part of some old, repudiated phase in her life....like Reagan being a New Dealer.  Just months ago she was bankrolling Virginia Democrat Mark  Warner's U.S. Senate bid.

McMahon did something lots of Connecticut Republicans did in 2006 --contribute to Joe Lieberman's campaign. Of course, most of Lieberman's contributors also made the effort to vote in the 2006 election. McMahon didn't bother to cast a vote ; perhaps it's easier to write checks than to wait in line at some Greenwich polling station.    Getting things done in the U.S. Senate can be pretty tedious, too

In fact, it appears McMahon wrote more checks to elect Democrats to the Senate than Republicans. But ok, she says she's a Republican? Well, what kind of Republican?

* One who supported various PACs affiliated with liberal Republican Christie Todd Whitman, the former NJ Governor. PAC's whose very purpose was to oppose conservative Republicans. 

* One who contributed to Whitman's daughter 's unsuccessful NJ congressional race

* One who has had turncoat  former liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker on her corporation's board of directors for over a decade

I mean , what more could she do to convince me she's a liberal Republican? Although she says she'll spend $30 million to convince me otherwise.

Hmm, hire as top consultant part of the NRSC's brain trust that wrote a blank check to Lincoln Chafee? Perhaps they pine for the days when Linc and Arlen were part of the caucus getting in everyone else's way

Now Mrs. McMahon says she's "against the special interests".  I'll save the bandwidth tonight. It's pretty obvious to even casual observers that the WWE is itself a special interest and has been for well over a decade. 

Connecticut Republicans have a great chance to elect a strong voice for responsible government to replace the spent  hulk of insider liberalism, Chris Dodd.

Thinking that person is Linda McMahon is as vain a hope as the thought another guy with money and star power wouldn't go girlie man once it became fashionable.  If she's the nominee I'll vote for her just to be rid of Dodd, and then expect her to be just another ineffective political celebrity waiting for a script to be written to make her audience happy.   

The Wild RINO might end up being great political theatre, but as far as doing what she says wants to do; c'mon... Wrestling's fake! 

 ===UPDATE==

Liberal CT Post columnist Jonathan Kantrowitz said some very kind things about this article, and linked to it, but posed one question I thought he deserved a response to:

Oddly enough, no one is attacking Rob Simmons for being too liberal, despite his support of gay marriage and abortion rights. In fact, most mainstream conservatives, and even some further right, are rushing to support him

I think the point here is everyone pretty much knows that

a) Rob Simmons is a moderate

b) Rob Simmons is a Republican

I have much more faith in an honest moderate with a track record than some woman off the street waving the conservative banner when her record displays zero prior interest in the cause.

One can have honest differences with the other Republican candidates in the field; but they are running as who they are. Unlike Mrs.McMahon, I am reasonably certain Mr. Simmons, Mr. Caligiuri, Mr. Foley and Mr. Schiff have believed in their campaign platforms for more than a couple of days.

Every time I see a pro Obama bumper sticker on a car in traffic, I can’t help but wonder about the driver. I wonder if they are embarrassed to have people see the sticker. I wonder if they forgot it was there, or else they would have removed it. I just can’t understand why anybody would be proud of Obama at this point, and especially how anybody would boast of being a supporter at this point. If I had voted for him, I would want to keep that quiet. Do they really not know that other drivers around them are leaning to get a look at them while shaking their heads and wondering, “What is wrong with you?” or “What were you thinking?” I can’t help but wonder if maybe it isn’t their car and they are just hoping nobody sees them in it.

           Where are the decent, rational, thinking, freedom loving Democrats? I know they are out there. Do any of them have the guts to stand up and be counted? Of that I’m beginning to wonder. I cannot imagine that there are not great numbers of every day Americans who also happen to be Democrats that are deeply concerned with the direction President Obama is leading our country. We can debate conservative versus liberal ideology all day long, and I’m happy to do that. But this runaway train led by Obama is beyond all that.

          This administration is trying to fundamentally change America. Obama is a radical leftist, a statist. He has surrounded himself with radical statists. He has stated his desire to remake America. The point of this piece is not to define the agenda of the Obama administration. That is being done all over the place, and thank God for that. I want to know if and when mainstream Democrats are going to wake up, stand up, and reject this garbage. Obama told the American people that if they wanted to know who he was, to look at the people he had surrounding him. Okay, we looked, and it stinks. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, the radicals and tax cheats in his cabinet and czar positions, and more.     

         How obvious does it have to be? When is the evidence overwhelming enough? Democrats, your party has been hijacked. It’s been happening for a long time, but it has reached critical mass. Nobody gets to sit on the fence any more. You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem.

         At this point in the Obama administration’s tenure, I can see only three possibilities for why democrats have not joined the chorus against the statist crusade.

1)      they are ignorant

2)      they are apathetic

3)      they are true believers

         It’s hard to imagine anyone truly being ignorant with all the information available, although dependence on the mainstream media will certainly leave one ignorant. But there is just too much being said and written to not at least get some sense of what direction things are going. I include those who may still be deluded as to Obama’s real agenda as being in the ignorant category, but that excuse is getting very thin, very quickly. Apathy is worse than ignorance. At least ignorance is an excuse, albeit a lazy one. To be apathetic at this point is to be devoid of passion for anything. If it doesn’t matter to you yet, you may want to check for a pulse. True believers can at least be credited for taking a side. That’s about all they can get credit for, but it’s something.

         So where are the reasonable, non radical, America loving democrats? We, the opposition, welcome you. We need you. Find your voice, find your conviction, find your courage, and stand up for America.

         In the weeks and months after September 11, 2001, it didn’t matter much if we were Republicans or Democrats, conservative or liberal, what mattered was that we were Americans. America had been attacked and we rallied together to defend her. Well, America is under attack again. Not our buildings, not our very lives, but our principles, our values, and our way of life. Our traditions, our history, the very things that have made America great are being dismantled by this administration. It is time for Americans to once again stand together and defend her. Lose the bumper sticker and get a flag.

More at http://commonconservativesense.com

Nicholas Kristof attacked the subject of differentiating liberals from conservatives. Any such attempt is bound to have some limitations considering that there are a wide variety of people falling under both labels, and to some degree the labels are fluid over the years. For example, Barry Goldwater spent most of his career as a conservative leader, considered himself a liberal in his later years and, while he wouldn’t fit in perfectly with either group, would be radically at odds with today’s  conservative movement.

For whatever it is worth, I’ll throw out Kristof’s way to tell if someone is liberal or conservative:

If you want to tell whether someone is conservative or liberal, what are a couple of completely nonpolitical questions that will give a good clue?

How’s this: Would you be willing to slap your father in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit?

And, second: Does it disgust you to touch the faucet in a public restroom?

Studies suggest that conservatives are more often distressed by actions that seem disrespectful of authority, such as slapping Dad. Liberals don’t worry as long as Dad has given permission.

Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance’s drink are more likely to identify as conservatives.

The upshot is that liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently. This may even be a result, in part, of divergent neural responses…

One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.

This fits in well with George Lakoff’s strict father view of conservatives. This mindset based upon upholding authority explains why so many go ballistic in response to criticism of government activities and see liberal dissent as subversive and unpatriotic, along with their tendency to compromise civil liberties to support authority.

The political discourse in this country is dominated by two contrasting groups; we have the Democrats, represented by Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Reid, and the Republicans, represented by Bush, Palin, Huckabee, and Jindal. The reason I picked these individuals is because they, for the most part, agree with all the planks of their parties.

Another trait that they have in common is that most of these political figures, with the exceptions of Obama and Huckabee, are generally disliked. Not hated, not despised, disliked. Few of them have positive approval ratings, even though virtually every person polled had never met these people. While professions can be disliked, asking people what they thought of Bob, a used car salesman, would give you wildly different results than asking people what they thought of Bob, their local car salesman who goes to church with them and has a son who is on the school football team. The reason that these answers are different is that one is asking people what they think of a idea and the other is asking people what they think of a person. One of the main reasons that I believe that the politicians in the first paragraph are so disliked is that people know them as ideas and concepts, not as people. Nancy Pelosi may be a great person to talk to, but I know her as the representative of San Francisco liberalism in the same sense that I know Sarah Palin as the representative of uneducated social conservatism.

The second part of my point is that a district or state will generally elect people closer to the middle of their political balance. In other words, Vermont will elect a flaming liberal, while Mississippi will elect a rabid conservative, because they are near the middle of that state's political balance. Personality plays a big part as well, and many politicians get elected while being much more liberal or conservative than their average constituent, based on their charisma. Examples of this are Sebelius in Kansas or (I hate to use this ubiquitous example) Reagan in California. However, generally speaking, a right-of-center district will elect a right-of-center candidate, and vice-versa. Nate Silver shows a typical way that a region votes, based on how primaries end up, and how liberal/conservative the region is, here

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html

What this article says, for those who are loath of reading, is that each person is a number on the liberal-conservative scale, and they vote for the candidate that is closest to them; "If there's a liberal Democrat at space 10 and a conservative one at space 50, we assume that the voter at space 20 will pick the candidate at 10, who is slightly closer to her ideological preferences". This happens once in the primaries, and once in the general election, and in a 60-40 district, the dominant party wins 75% of the time, which seems logical.

The main development of the past 3 years, as my title implies, is that Democrats have been playing this system more deliberately. Ideally, according to the model, a district that is evenly divided should elect a Democrat at 25 on the scale, and a Republican at 75, and the two would split the vote evenly. However, if the Democrats push to nominate a more conservative member, say at 40 on the scale, that Democrat would win 55-45. I know that there are dozens of intangibles in this situation, such as liberal Democrats staying home or voting Green. However, I think that a lot of progress that the Democrats have made electorally is because they are biting the bullet and choosing more conservative Democrats, while Republicans are talking about doing the opposite.

The other major development, besides picking "conservadems", is the Democrats' adoption of, for lack of a better word, Rovian tactics in terms of branding. Our guy is your neighbor, the guy you buy nails and lumber from (is a small business owner), the guy who keeps you safe at night (is an attorney general), or the guy who is an elder at your church (loves family values). Their guy is the idea, the concept. Kerry is the concept of Vietnam protests and Massachusetts liberalism, while Bush is the local police chief who has had to make the tough decisions necessary to keep your family safe.

To see how both these trends played out today, one needs to look no further than the NY-20 special election. Despite being the worse candidate and starting at a large disadvantage, Murphy won because he was a conservative democrat (as opposed to a typical republican), and because he was successful in branding himself as a small-business entrepreneur, as opposed to Tedisco, who he tied with the Republican establishment.

The applications of this are twofold. One is to ease the pressure on Republicans in liberal and moderate states. The Democrats have let their Blue Dogs vote against the party on some important proposals, and that is a key reason why many of them are still in office. Secondly, allow Republican candidates to distance themselves from prominent members of their party.

Personal disclaimer: I am a moderate conservative who voted for both Bush and Obama, obviously for different reasons. I know the latter would get me banned from other sites (*cough* RedState *cough*), but I appreciate reading debate from liberals and conservatives...as long as it's good ^_^.

Which is easier for a libertarian? Trading in the black markets of banned social behaviors or not paying your taxes? Clearly the former. That’s why when it comes to the unsavory business of political team sports, I generally get behind the team that signals a greater likelihood of leaving the economy to heal itself holistically. Whatever team is more likely to stay out of my pocket and tries not to punish performance (as much) will get my vote. That’s why I continue to support “fusionism,” the coalition between conservatives and libertarians. In short, the accretion of state power in economic matters is much more serious to me than concerns about the renaissance of the moral majority. I’d rather have a President with quaint views on sexuality and drug use than a Fabian Socialist with a trillion-dollar credit card.

But many beltway libertarians have gone “liberaltarian.”  It’s a term meant to describe freedom-lovers who share common purpose with the left on social issues and have therefore made a couple of steps leftward, politically—perhaps even far enough to give hope and change a chance in the voting booth. At least social issues are part of their motivation. Apparently, these libertarians are also tempted by both the pretentions and progressivity of the left—some by the pseudo-intellectual salon culture, others by the genuinely intelligent and cultured members of the leftwing. Libertarians, generally, recoil from the strain of populist conservatism that was created in the left’s caricature of Sarah Palin late last year. And who can blame them? Truly populist conservatives can, indeed, be pretty intolerant and toleration is the prime virtue of any civil society.

So, while I would urge libertarians to carry on sipping lattes with their liberal acquaintances, I’d also suggest they make their core political allegiances with the limited government right—particularly in this age of champagne socialism, White House messiahs and big government fetishism. After all, that’s the only way we libertarians will continue to get a word in edgewise while speaking truth to power. We won’t get it by ingratiating ourselves to lefties and dropping comments about “dispersed knowledge” at cocktail parties. Such is not likely to impress those for whom equality of outcome is their first and last value.

Yuval Levin lays it out pretty well when he writes:

In American politics, the distinction between populism and elitism is further subdivided into cultural and economic populism and elitism. And for at least the last forty years, the two parties have broken down distinctly along this double axis. The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism. Republicans tend to identify with the traditional values, unabashedly patriotic, anti-cosmopolitan, non-nuanced Joe Sixpack, even as they pursue an economic policy that aims at elite investor-driven growth. Democrats identify with the mistreated, underpaid, overworked, crushed-by-the-corporation “people against the powerful,” but tend to look down on those people’s religion, education, and way of life. Republicans tend to believe the dynamism of the market is for the best but that cultural change can be dangerously disruptive; Democrats tend to believe dynamic social change stretches the boundaries of inclusion for the better but that economic dynamism is often ruinous and unjust.

Where does that leave the libertarian? Are we to be the cultural and economic elitists? Such a lonely place. But unless we’re talking about weirdo survivalists in rural Michigan or computer gamers claiming a 2nd Amendment right to own nuclear warheads, many beltway libertarians might, indeed, be considered doubly elitist. Still, I wouldn’t strain these characterizations to make them fit. I like the term “dynamists” much better. While we are much more likely to be cast as apologists for both fat cats and pot-smokers, we’d rather be known as those who see the value of innovation and progress through free association—whether in the cultural or economic sphere. And while we have our own branding problems, we bring some important things to the table—unbeatable understanding of market processes, tech-savvy, and a pretty good insight into the way the left thinks.

So the question remains: with which of the two major power-centers (realistically speaking) should we cast our lot? Should we be liberaltarians or fusionists? Well, it depends. The troubling truth is that in recent years Republicans have given us little on which to pin our hopes. If you’re asking libertarians to choose between two statist mobs, we’d just as soon stay home and write snarky articles at both sides from the comfort of our ineffectual non-profits. (Our rectitude is enough to sustain us.) And while we haven’t seen political power since the 18th Century when a couple of us sat down and wrote those Founding documents, we should realize that there is probably a lot more overlap with conservatives on matters of statecraft. In fact, the best hope for the Republican Party is probably to become more like us. But if conservatives want to keep this fusionist coalition going, they’re going have to do more to keep from losing libertarians to the cappuccino crowd. And we can’t afford to lose each other. Not right now. Not with so much at stake. Let's put the Bush years behind us and move on.

We simply cannot afford to lose a generation of young voters to the Democrats. As a follow-up to my first post from a few days back, I’d like to propose some specific changes that would better serve the Republican Party in recapturing the youth vote.

Establish a Young Voter Outreach arm of the Republican National Committee

We need to fight tooth and nail to bring young voters back to the Republican Party. Yes, the Young Republican National Federation and College Republican National Committee exist. The problem is that neither of these organizations actively serve to “sell” the Republican Party to young voters – rather, their purpose is to engage young voters who are already affiliated with the GOP. Thus, the Young Voter Outreach arm would serve to accomplish this, demonstrating to young voters that the Republican Party actually cares about winning their vote and is not just the party of older generations.

This arm of the RNC must be overseen by – surprise – a Republican under the age of 30. It would be responsible for working with the RNC’s eCampaign folks to launch new, state-of-the-art websites, blogs, and other online projects that are designed specifically to appeal to young voters who are not necessarily Republicans. One of the goals of these projects should be to serve to answer crucial questions like, “Why is the Republican Party’s platform the right one for me as a young voter?” or “Why should I, as a young voter, be alarmed about the Democrats’ plan to [insert bad policy here – redistribute the wealth, raise taxes, etc.]?”

But there’s more. As a Party, we need to begin building and then maintaining a strong base of young, up-and-coming Republicans, who in the near future can begin running for the U.S. House and Senate. These young candidates will help allow us to pursue a 435 district strategy while bringing new, fresh faces to the table. Therefore, the Young Voter Outreach arm would be responsible for identifying and recruiting these folks, but more importantly, it would encourage them to begin running for local offices and provide training sessions to show them how to run for an office and win.

Differentiate from Democrats Through Ideals of Limited Government

Over the next two years, the Democrats will look to expand government in many ways. As I noted in my first column, many young voters are decidedly libertarian, and thus they’ll frown on these changes – a circumstance that Republicans, as the party of free-markets and personal liberty, can capitalize upon.

Despite this, young voters are going to find it difficult to support the Republican Party if it remains the party that condones government intervention in such issues as gay marriage or the behavior of two consenting adults in their own bedroom. These socially conservative issues may be important to voters in the other generations, but in the eyes of many of my peers, government has no place in getting involved in these matters. Indeed, the Republican Party’s continued support of government involvement in these issues continues to reinforce the notion to many young voters that the GOP is the party of the older generations.

Clearly, some sort of common ground needs to be reached if the Republican Party wishes to appeal to the young voting bloc while not losing social conservatives. In terms of policy, what could this balance look like? On issues such as gay marriage, Republicans could advocate the voters in each state making their own statewide decision. Specifically, California’s Proposition 8 is a phenomenal example of how the voters – rather than the government – can determine their state’s position on this sort of issue. Abortion, however, is a slightly different animal. If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then abortion is, quite simply, the infringement of another human being’s right to life. Since the federal government is charged with protecting people’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Republicans can fairly argue that it is the federal government’s responsibility to fight to limit abortion.

Taking this all into account, a forward-looking, pro-young voter platform statement for the Republican Party of the future should look something like this:

The Republican Party is the party of individual freedom, limited government, and personal choice. At the federal level, we will fight to reduce the size of government and make it more accountable to the people who fund it. We will fight to protect every human being’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And at the statewide level, we will work with the citizens to protect and preserve the traditional values upon which this great nation was built.

Rethink Our Branding and Organizational Identity

This one’s so simple, yet we cannot underestimate its importance: the fact is that a huge part of what drew young voters to Barack Obama was his hip, corporate-like branding and identity. Some might argue that this is shallow, but I strongly disagree. Instead, this is the reality of effective marketing. Indeed, it is the same reason that some brands flourish and while others fail miserably. Marketing is one of the most critical topics in the business world, and Barack Obama has taught us that it can be equally as significant in politics.

Just look at a side-by-side of the two candidate’s logos. Obama’s “O” logo probably has near 100% brand recognition – you don’t need the “Obama ‘08″ below it to know what it represents. On the other hand, if you took away McCain-Palin and left only the star at the top with the two lines extending out from it, would anyone have a clue what it represents? Nope.

Further, Obama’s simplistic yet impeccably memorable slogan of “hope” and “change” were consistent and didn’t change in the slightest since he entered the race. McCain didn’t maintain such a consistent message, and unfortunately, his “Country First” slogan that was implemented near the end of the race does not have the appeal of “hope” and “change.”

Fortunately, the Democratic Party itself does not have a branding or identity advantage over the Republican Party. This creates a unique opening for the GOP to take the initiative. Redesign the RNC’s logo and GOP.com to reflect the trends of Web 2.0. Find a unifying, clear-cut message for the party that carries wide-spread appeal. And most importantly, offer resources so that our candidates as well as our state and local parties can do the same.

Conclusion

The changes that I’ve identified in this post are necessary for the Republican Party to transform itself as the party of the future. A huge component that will be necessary to accomplishing this is the GOP’s ability to attract younger, fresh faces – the people who are this country’s future. Ultimately, the changes I propose all add up to one overreaching goal: to transform the Republican Party into one that represents all generations and embodies the core principles that make this nation so great.

This entry is cross-posted at NextGenGOP.

A new report from Rasmussen states that "Two days after Barack Obama became the first African-American to be voted into the White House, the percentage of black voters who view American society as fair and decent jumped 18 points to 42%".  As there are approximately 28 million African-Americans, that 18 percent translates to about 5 million people. This change will be--by far--the most important positive aspect for conservatism to come out of this election,  Certainly the numbers may not be stable.   Certainly a yes/no question hides as much as it reveals.  But look at the potential implications:

The belief that America is unfair motivates much of the liberal agenda including an activist court system, affirmative action, unions,  large government handouts, and taxes on the rich.  Conservatives value fairness, but also heavily value other concerns such as tradition, liberty, and stability.  It is easier to balance fairness with other concerns if you believe that your country is fair than if you believe your country is unfair.

Today, five million African-Americans are far more open to conservative thinking than they were just two weeks ago.  We should welcome our new allies and work hard to make them a permanent part of our movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL0VoIgopPI

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.

I was on the phone with Lis Wiehl of Fox News. Lis was filling in for Steve Malzberg, a popular conservative radio talk show host here in New York. Basically, I called into give my assessment of the Vice Presidential debates tomorrow night. Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up! It’s…