Could this be the end?

Is this the end of the Conservative branch of the Republican Party? Citing his love for his country and his party, Mitt Romney has "suspended" his candidacy for the nomination for the Republican Party Presidential race. This comes on the heels of declarations by several conservative pundits--most notably Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, and James Dobson, that they would rather surrender the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan to Islamofascists than support front-runner John McCain. Laura Ingraham also stated that she cannot support McCain, but she stopped short of saying she would rather vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, as Coulter has said she would.
Now these pundits will be the first to declare that they are not telling people how to vote; that they are merely expressing what they stand for and it is up to their listeners to agree or disagree with them. But we know some of their listeners and we know that some would go along with their political commentary no matter what they say.
Mitt Romney's admission of fear that a conservative-moderate rift within the Republican Party would hand the presidential election to the Democratic candidate is well founded. For those of us who remember the way the economy was during the Carter years, a new Democratic administration that embraces fiscal ideas similar to Carter's spells disaster.
Romney's assertation that he would rather step down than see surrender to the Islamofascists in the Middle and Near East made a strong statement relevent to those of us who are concerned about where we would draw the line of defense, the disasterous effects of a precipitous withdrawal. McCain, as we all know, was advocating a surge and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq long before General Petreaeus came into the picture. We now know that McCain was correct in that the counter-insurgency operations in Iraq have shown a fair amount of success, and promise even more. I have long said that the quickest way out of Iraq is to let the military finish the job, so in this sense I am a McCain supporter, and I applaud Romney in making this a major factor in his decision to step down.
A question that should be asked of the conservative faction is where were they when the time came to vote for Romney in the primary elections and caucuses? The number of voters who have turned out for the Democratic Party nominating process is twice that of those who felt it important enough to vote in the Republican Party process. If it is so important to these conservatives to have a candidate who represents their values, why didn't they get out to support the candidate they felt best represented those ideas? Only those who failed to vote can answer that question, but it seems as though they had already accepted defeat.
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are still actively campaigning in the race for the nomination, though neither of them is numerically viable at this point in the process. I agree with nearly everything Dr. Paul stands for, except that his ideas on foreign policy are a gross display of his naivete or outright ignorance of consensus reality. Even Hillary Clinton has suggested that she would leave a garrison in Iraq for technical support and military training, and Barack Obama has said that he would shift the majority of military force to Afghanistan and invade the "friendly" country of Pakistan if he felt it necessary. Although their ideas would cost more than any country could afford in the long run, they are still better than Dr Paul's theory that to shut America inside locked doors and ignore the rest of the world would immediately bring peace and prosperity. Still, his stand on Social Security, illegal immigration, supporting the Bush tax cuts, and ending government interference in the economy is worth consideration in building either the Republican or Libertarian party platform. Dr Paul's ideas on the economy would put much more in the pockets of Americans than any plan thought up by the majority of the other candidates from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
What I really like about Governor Huckabee is his support of the Fair Tax Initiative. The Fair Tax Initiative abolishes the IRS and ends the confiscation of wages and earnings. This is essentially a federal sales tax that is truely voluntary--you only pay taxes on what you buy. Even those in the underground economy created by prohibition would pay taxes as opposed to the current system where their earnings are not reported and thus they do not pay taxes. Not having to pay taxes on your earnings is truly fair, it puts more money in the pockets of the consumer and encourages economic growth. McCain has indicated that he might be interested in the initiative.
Both Huckabee and Paul believe in the ability of the free market to come up with energy alternatives to replace petrofuels, while McCain stands for government controls to artificially influence the market toward alternative energy. McCain is known for stubbornly sticking to what he believes, but hopefully this is one issue he feels he should concede to the conservatives.
In fact, if Huckabee and Paul stay in the running long enough, their ideas would be given enough attention that they could become part of the Republican Party platform after the national convention. Then the Republicans could have a platform that could appeal to the conservatives and a candidate who would appeal to the moderates and independents, whose votes are always important in the general elections.
Personally, if I feel, come November, that John McCain has a chance of winning the presidential election, I will likely vote for him. However, if it seems that the Republicans are willing to hand the office of the President to the Democratic Party, I will, with clear conscience, vote Libertarian.I am certain that many independent voters will feel the same way, at least those who are genuinely concerned about the economy and the long term effects of a large scale growth of government as promised by the Democratic candidates. The whole idea of the Demopublican nominating system is to present the most electable candidate. The Republican party should understand this and follow the lead of Romney, if they are, in fact, concerned about their principles. Otherwise, in four years, the electorate will be so fed up with Demopublican politics, neither Republican nor Democratic candidates will have a base on which to ensure electability.

Political Correctness deemed bad for children

So you think Dennis Kucinich is the right man for the White House? Or maybe Ron Paul is your choice? Do you honestly believe that Rosie O'Donnell is right about 9-11? Chances are you watched too much Sesame Street.
According to this article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, the show that was known for spreading the message of political correctness to youngsters has been deemed "suitable for adults only."
That is the warning printed on the packaging of the new DVD release of the first two seasons of the venerated PBS children's program. The PC police have pointed out several problems with the show that they did not notice as children. Oh my God, were they actually drinking whole milk? Why was Oscar the Grouch's obvious depression untreated? These are questions that would never cross the mind of the four year old watching the show, but it was right there on the television! Never mind that the characters were imaginary, or that they were portrayed by puppets, but a gay couple like Bert and Ernie living in a decrepit apartment sends the wrong message, according to the PC police. They should know, they grew up watching the show and look at them now.
So, whether it's an oxymoron or a self-fulfilling prophecy, the message to liberals now is don't let your children grow up to be like you.
Or, as Tyler Grey of Radar Online writes:

Why, Gen-X'er, did you become a flannel-wearing faux liberal, trusting (in theory) of the good will of your Socialistically like-minded fellow citizens but actually rendered cynical by a much grimmer reality you encountered in adult life?

Sesame Street. It totally f***ed you up.

Future Pundit?

With over 9 million hits, I know just about everybody has seen this, but here it is again:

Please click here, if you can't view the video.

A couple of days ago, there was a pundit on one of the news channels, either FNC or CNN--I apologize for not remembering his name--who was discussing Michael Vick's guilty plea. He tried desparately to tie Vick's problems to the policies of the Bush Administration, saying, "Bad apples are falling from the trees, and that wouldn't be happening if our freedoms weren't so restricted by the (Iraq) war and the Patriot Act."
Huh?
I'm sure if the gentleman had had more air time, he would have attempted to blame Bush for Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears as well.
Yet this type of illogic seems to be very common nowadays, with people jumping to conclusions that no rational mind could reach.
The Democratic Party is probably planning, at this moment, to run Miss Teen South Carolina for Congress in 2010. If she doesn't get elected, she will be in high demand as a political "expert." It wouldn't surprise me at all.