Sow and ye shall reap! Am I blue/Food For Thought!

Republicans are three for three in losing House Seats. Two allegedly because of "lousy" candidates. The last loss in Mississippi was due to their inability to tie the opposition candidate to Obama since he was actually a Republican clone running as a Democrat.

First,what Republicans still seem not to understand is they have no distinguishing message worth listening to or embracing. Second, their record of achievements, when they were the majority, was pathetic. Third, as long as they persist in being "political whores" they do not deserve to win.

Granted, Democrats are no better but the nation's mood seems to seek change at the top and cares not a whit about probing further down the ranks. Pelosi and Reid have been disasters but no one cares. They are interested in doing everything they can to stick pins in their "illegitimate president" GW doll but the public does not give a fig since they too have their own GW doll in which they want to stick pins.

I recently sent a site of speeches by former Sec of State- Allbright, President Clinton and current New Mexico Gov. Richardson among other high placed Democrats warning about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Sadaam's "dissing" of the U.N. sanctions etc. It is there for all to see: -http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

This proves several things to my simple mind:

a) GW allowed Democrats to paint him into a corner with his same message while using their hypocritical brush.

b)The media are as dishonest as Democrats for ably assisting them.

c) GW was "Iraq-WMD" vulnerable as the public was in search of laying blame and thus, Democrats were able to pin their donkey's tail on the Republican's elephant.

Does Democrat hypocrisy have relevance to Republican House losses? I believe it does because Republicans seem not to know how to defend themselves and to fight for what they believe. First, because they no longer believe in anything worth defending and more importantly they must mistakenly believe their former conservative philosophy and values have been matched by their performance. Against a stacked deck of hypocrisy and media bias, Republicans have no cards to play when their leadership record has been so abysmal. Certainly they cannot rely upon voters to help them. As I said earlier, voters are more interested in discerning who to blame than being objective and rational. Heat trumps light! Otherwise, why Obama's popularity?

So how do Republicans get our of the morass in which they have placed themselves? I doubt they can, because far too many within their ranks care about getting re-elected. They have lost any conservative philosophical moorings. Thus, they are not likely to craft a cohesive conservative message. In fact, they have increasingly become clones of Democrat thinking by offering health care and ecology "light" solutions and programs rather than anything meaningful, sincere, sensible and any other stray adjective you want to attach to this sentence.

Only in defeat are they likely to regain their vision. They earned their losses and now deserve the consequences.

Eventually the same will happen to Democrats because they continue to offer Populist threadbare senseless policies which permitted Republicans to become the majority - entitlements and dependency, throwing money at hair-brained and ill-conceived programs, emasculating the military and appeasement. The problem is, until Republicans have something worthwhile to offer, Democrats will continue to win by default and our nation will suffer economically, our labor force will continue to lose meaningful jobs,, terrorism might gain the upper hand and education will continue its downward spiral etc.

The best one can hope for, it would appear, is a McCain Presidency - an American Horatio - standing against the Democrat's continued, and probably increased, control of The House and Senate.

It is one thing for politicians to run from Nixon, Carter and Clinton but it is no sign of honor to desert GW who has made plenty of mistakes but whose presidency, like Truman's, will eventually rise as historians objectively look at his policies, both good and bad. Therefore, as Republicans cowardly desert GW out of fear of losing their own seats they do not distinguish themselves and in fact give voters even more reasons to cast them out of office. That Republican officeholders have every right to criticize GW's failures is one thing but failing to support him when he has been right is political perfidy.

Sow and ye shall reap and what goes around is now coming around.

This was sent to me by a fellow memo reader who is as "blue" as I am. (See 1 below.)

If the shoe fits, then Obama might consider wearing it. Harsh reaction to Obama's comments and list of close advisors and associates. (See 2 below.)

John Mauldin offers some food for thought. (See 3 below.)

GW went out of his way to be kind to Israel and to recognize the special relationship bwteen our nation and theirs. However, GW's comments about appeasement leave me a bit perplexed. Certainly Olmert has taken an appeasing posture and even though GW has tried, through negotiation and temperance, to bring the N Koreans, Iranians and Syrians to their senses he has, up to now, failed. Does GW leave office assuming his predecessor will carry forward and accomplish what he has not? Should it be President Obama, should anyone place any currency on him considering his comments and what could McCain do that a Democrat Congress would support? (See 4 below.)

Had a little time before leaving for New Orleans and turning 75 tomorrow. It's been a great run and I look forward to more years of bugging the world with my writing(s).

Dick

1)I am not smitten, I have a very sad and painful personal experience, and I can see the writing on the walls, ceilings, doors, but mainly on the TV screen.

This is the most dangerous man on earth comparing the damage he can do to the damage the other ''bad guys'' around the world have already done.

How people can believe in someone who offers hope and change without saying a word of what he wants to change and how he wants to do it?

What does he mean by hope? Can someone give hope? Something that can be given can be bought. Can you tell me where?

You can see and hear the video of him saying it To see and hear the video of Obama saying it, go tohttp://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2008/dp_05131.shtml
Is Obama Smarter Than A 5th Grade Jaywalker?
By Doug Patton


Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has an indicted, Syrian-born Chicago shyster named Tony Rezko for a financial mentor. He has a screwball, race-baiting, America-hating pastor named Jeremiah Wright for a spiritual mentor. He has an unrepentant domestic terrorist named William Ayers for a political mentor. And he has one of the angriest wives ever to aspire to the position of First Lady.

Obama refuses to wear a flag lapel pin because he thinks it is more patriotic to criticize his country than to support it, or even to wear a symbol of its support.

Obama thinks those of us out here in flyover country are all a bunch of bitter, gun-toting, Bible-thumping bigots furious at "those who don't look like us."

That really should be enough to sink this lightweight candidacy filled with vague language about "hope" and "change" -- what George Will has called "rhetorical cotton candy."

But wait. There's more. Just when we thought Obama had shot himself in the last foot he had available, he presents us with another gift.

On top lapelgate and pastorgate and bittergate, now comes stategate. It seems that the brilliant Barack Obama doesn't know how many states there are in our union. In an off-the-cuff statement you will not hear about on the nightly news, Obama declared that during his presidential campaign, he has visited 57 states. He also said that he has one more to visit: Alaska and Hawaii. I swear to you, that's what the man said.

Here are his exact words: "I've now been to 57 states...I have one more to go...they wouldn't let me go to Alaska and Hawaii."

Now, try to imagine if John McCain - or any other Republican - had uttered such a stupid statement in public. Is there any doubt that person would have been pilloried and Dan Quayled for the remainder of this campaign? (At least when Quayle questioned the spelling of potato, he had some basis in fact for his inquiry: the plural of the word is "potatoes" - with an "e.")

McCain is still being vilified for referring to Iran-supported terrorists in Iraq as al Qaida, as if the vast majority of Americans care about the distinction between a Sunni and a Shiite terrorist.

Entire books have been written about the gaffes of George W. Bush. He has been castigated for everything from his mispronunciation of the word "nuclear" (he always says "nucular") to his inability to communicate with the press. His mangled syntax has been regular fodder for the crew at "Saturday Night Live" for his entire two terms in office. "Misunderestimated" was always one of my personal favorites.

But even the most misinformed American can tell you this country has 50 states, having learned that information in what? Kindergarten?

But fear not, Obama supporters; excuses will be made by the mainstream media. "He was tired," we will be told, or "he misspoke." And they will only tell you that if they are forced to report on the matter at all. The New York Times (and most other major newspapers), CNN, ABC, CBS, tax-supported PBS and especially NBC are so pro-Obama it is downright embarrassing, and make no mistake, they will continue to circle the wagons around this guy, just as they have done throughout this campaign.

Perhaps Obama should be a contestant on Fox's "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" Or maybe Jay Leno could interview him out on Hollywood Boulevard as part of his Tonight Show "Jay Walking" segment.

How many of our states have you been to, Senator Obama? Fifty-seven? That's very impressive. I hope you get the chance to see the other one. Or is it two?

2)Responding to Sen. Barack Obama's comments today about President Bush's speech in Jerusalem, the Republican Jewish Coalition released the following statement:

"Why when Barack Obama hears the word 'appeasement' does he think it applies to him? Why when it comes to standing with Israel is Barack Obama so defensive? It is Barack Obama's promise to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that causes great nervousness in the Jewish community. Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush agree -- Barack Obama's policies of direct presidential negotiations with hostile regimes, without precondition, is naïve and irresponsible.

Barack Obama's shaky grasp of Middle East policy and repeated vows to meet with state sponsors of terrorism are alarming. Barack Obama has surrounded himself with advisors, past and present, like Gen. Merrill McPeak, Robert Malley, Congressman Jim Moran, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who choose to blame America's Jewish community for the problems in the Middle East. It's no wonder Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama."

3) Outside The Box
By John Mauldin

What countries are truly the have and have nots of the world? Good friend and business partner Niels Jensen of Absolute Return Partners suggests we look at the old equation in a new way? Food and energy resources may be at least part of the definition in the future. In this week's Outside the Box we continue a theme I mentioned a few weeks ago: agricultural needs are going to be a new and important force in the world and when coupled with energy may shift the balance of power in the world in strange a different ways.

When, as Niels points out, Afghanistan poppy farmers are shifting to wheat farming, the world is truly a different place. I think you will find the research he has done to be truly worth a few minutes of your thinking time.

And as a preface, I was reminded a little while ago that a Financial Times headline story last Friday mentioned that China is buying African farmland and building massive amounts of railroads and infrastructure to get grains to the market. I have long been bullish on African farmland. This week's OTB will tell you why.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

4) President Bush says America is proud to be Israel’s ally



Addressing a special Knesset session marking Israel’s 60th anniversary, Thursday, May 15, US President George W. Bush declared: America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. “It would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations,” he said, to let Tehran acquire atomic arms.

Washington sees Israel as one of its partners in the fight against “extremists including Hamas, Hizballah and al Qaeda, as well as its efforts to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Bush challenged the argument that “if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away,” by saying: “America rejects this utterly. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million, but when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong because America stands with you.”

“Massada will not fall again,” said Bush after touring the national shrine at Massada, the desert fortress where 960 Jews men, women and children took their own lives rather than surrender to Roman forces.

The Knesset seats and gallery were packed for the special session.

The US president referred to his vision of a Palestinian state by predicting that in 60 years, Israel will celebrate its 120th anniversary "as one of the world's great democracies" and the Palestinians "will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved".

Arab lawmakers were removed when they displayed placards representing Arab children killed in Gaza and Iraq.

Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said in his speech that negotiators of a settlement with the Palestinians must not forget that the purpose of peace is to strengthen Israel’s security, not weaken it. Two nationalist lawmakers walked out when prime minister Olmert said that the Bush two-state vision would be approved by a large Knesset majority.