Joe knows Obama ---

And so do the rest of us!!

Obama: 9/11 was a "failure of empathy"

Eight days after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Obama -- the man who would be Commander in Chief -- blamed the terrorist attacks on "a failure of empathy."

The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine got a lot of attention for its cover, which carried a "satirical" cartoon depicting Michelle and Barack Obama that Obama supporters found tasteless and offensive. Buried inside that issue's feature story, however, was a reaction by Obama to 9/11 that all voters should find even more tasteless and offensive.

The article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept. 19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown and otherwise undistinguished state senator from Illinois. The senator, a former community organizer, wrote that after tightening security at our airports and repairing our intelligence networks, we "must also engage . . . in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness."

According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles aimed at our centers of finance, government and military power "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

As if the answer to the attacks should have been food stamps for al-Qaida.

Sen. Obama advised caution and warned of overreacting. "We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad," he wrote. "We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent."

We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.

In an opinion piece in Commentary magazine, writer Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."

As Greenwald put it, Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?" Did poverty and despair also cause the Weather Underground member and host of Obama's first fundraiser to bomb government buildings?

Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:

Osama bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9/11 and other major attacks, has a degree in mechanical engineering. Mohammed Atta, who flew a jet into the World Trade Center, is the son of a lawyer and earned a master's degree in urban planning at Hamburg University. Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. Seven doctors were involved in the London-Glasgow bomb plots.

You get the idea, even if Barack Obama doesn't.

In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush pointed out the real reasons Islamofascists hate us: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."

"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he said.

Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.

Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.

I have no idea how Obama's comments have failed to resonate with the American people. Hopefully, those words will resonate before it's too late.

SpinSpotter Spots "Spin" in the MSM

Why not give it a spin?



It can't be any loopier than some of the "spin" we've been getting from the msm!

Romney and Leadership

Support proven leadership.



Mitt Romney. The plan. The man. The ideas. The solutions.

Pretenders vs Mitt

It was what everyone expected. Attack Mitt. And he did more than survive. He excelled in pushing back the assaults on his character and the misrepresentations on his policies.

Stay with us, Mitt. We believe in you. Currently, you're having to withstand the onslaught of McCain, Rudy, Huckabee and Fred. They're standing together because that's the only way they can confront you. And behind them is the MSM --- including FoxNews.

Read a supporting perspective at Perish the Thought:

Fair and Balanced? We know what to expect from MSM, but is FoxNews now slanting their reporting?

Hannity helped raise funds for Rudy .... Dick Morris, a regular analyst for The
Factor and Hannity, is an adviser to Huckabee .... former-Speaker Newt Gingrich, another regular guest on Fox, is also being touted as a Huckabee adviser (see the joint health care article linked previously and the fact that Newt's top staffer has joined Huckabee's staff) .... Why must the wife of a Romney advisor who is also a frequent analyst routinely state her husband's status? Is there any correlation to Fox News current slanting of reporting showing it's disfavor of Mitt's candidacy? If not --- how do they explain the obvious bias of it's "fair and balanced" coverage by Carl Cameron -- or in particular, the rude shouting match between Greta (the
legal analyst) and Shep (hyperventilating cute guy) last Tuesday night during a guest-spot with a Senator representing Romney?

Be strong, Mitt. We need you.

The Hidden John McCain

From Gull at PtT ---

I've always held the Vietnam vet in high esteem. I was with them -- literally and figuratively -- and experienced first-hand the harassment and spite they have endured. That being said -- I have historically distrusted John McCain for how he has used his military service (particularly as a POW) as a crutch to further his political career.

His political career always has that subliminal disclaimer: "...yeah, but he was a military hero ..." As if he's "entitled" to forgiveness when straying from his conservative roots.

My contention is that, had his father not been an admiral, his lack-luster record (including the loss of at least 2 airplanes) would have gotten him thrown out of the military or notably demoted. For whatever he didn't accomplish -- it was not until his POW status that he gained any esteem.

Is this relevant to his run for an office to which he has always aspired?

I think so. There are too many correlations and incidents of self-service, entitlements and compromise in his background to qualify him as a reliable conservative candidate for POTUS. Much less as commander-in-chief in a volatile time.

If you choose to disagree -- fine. But when you do, keep in mind his voting record, his defense of amnesty, his history of sanctions by his peers, his emotional instability, his flip-flops and inconsistencies in promoting basic conservative tenets.

----------------

From Pat Murphy:

Those who've known John McCain since he began his Arizona political career two decades ago made two mistakes. First, we underestimated the Washington media's gullibility for a political schmooze job. Second, we underestimated McCain's mastery in reincarnating himself as a lovable maverick glowing with political virtue and amiable charm while camouflaging his bullyboy and deceitful ways.

If McCain were to become president, Americans would wake up to more than a commander-in-chief with a prickly temperament and a low boiling point. McCain is a man who carries get-even grudges. He cannot endure criticism. He threatens. He controls by fear. He's consumed with self-importance. He shifts blame. McCain's thin skin and demand to have it his way have been obvious since infancy, when he held his breath until he was unconscious, and later in Washington, where he has resorted to pushing and shoving colleagues when irritated.

McCain is a man obsessed with political ambitions but plagued by self-destructive petty impulses. It was vintage McCain who exploded when the Arizona Republic questioned whether the man dubbed "Senator Hothead" in Washington is fit to be entrusted with presidential powers. Instead of conceding what's common knowledge about his volcanic personality, McCain exploded in denial, blaming a newspaper vendetta and George W. Bush for "orchestrating" the criticism. When his claims drew snickers, McCain shifted to another explanation: He explodes when he sees "injustice."

But this sort of blame-fixing works where it counts--with reporters who've come to blindly lionize McCain as a high-minded champion of political virtue fighting demons of political corruption. Perhaps McCain's master stroke in inoculating himself from serious media
scrutiny was his early fusillade of confessions--his adultery ruined his first marriage, the Keating Five scandal was a blemish on his reputation, he indulged in wild and reckless misbehavior as an Annapolis midshipman. He finally endeared himself to the media with
his Quixotic promise to reform campaign financing and by holding court with reporters aboard his "Straight Talk Express" bus.

The new journalism of dwelling on personalities rather than tedious investigative digging gives McCain a free ride from the national media. Swooning media ensure McCain special treatment in the right places: 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace cooed on the air that he likes McCain so much, he might leave TV to become his press secretary. Salon's Jake Tapper dubbed him "basically just a cool dude." Newsmen of another generation note that reporters covering McCain also are reluctant to seem tough on a man with McCain's painful experience as a prisoner of war.

One who hasn't been so quick to fall in line is Washington Post columnist David Broder, who warned on NBC's Meet the Press that "after the experience we all had with President Clinton [ignoring Arkansas reports of his misdeeds], I'm not inclined to discount the view of home-state reporters and journalists who have covered a candidate over the years." A few enterprising non-Arizona journalists have peeled back the McCain veneer. Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson spent several weeks digging into McCain's Arizona behavior and reporting his dark side. Ditto Ted Rose of Brill's Content. And the acknowledged Arizona media expert on
McCain, reporter Amy Silverman of the Phoenix New Times (more on her later), gave readers of Playboy a McCain portrait not found elsewhere. ABC's Sam Donaldson came close to giving millions of viewers a clearer picture in a taped interview with Silverman for 20/20. But
the segment was canceled the night before airing, fueling speculation that McCain's oversight of broadcasters as Senate Commerce Committee chairman makes the networks wary of offending him. Several years ago, when NBC refused to support his TV-rating system, McCain wrote a letter to NBC President Robert Wright, threatening to ask the FCC to review licenses of the network's locally owned stations.

I'm among the swelling ranks of onetime McCain acquaintances ostracized for not being slavishly loyal. After McCain settled in Arizona with his young second wife, a millionaire, he asked me at dinner for help with a political career. As editorial page editor (and later publisher) of the Arizona Republic, I declined to be his political coach. However, we socialized, including dinners at his home. We even discussed writing a book. The relationship ended, however, when our newspaper exposed McCain as a liar who used an underhanded political trick.

Here is what happened: McCain boasted to my wife and me over lunch in Washington that he had planted complex questions with the Senate Interior Committee chairman to sabotage the testimony of Arizona Gov. Rose Mofford, a Democrat, about the Central Arizona Project, the multibillion-dollar Colorado River water delivery system for Arizona urban areas. When I protested to McCain that the project had enjoyed bipartisan support for nearly 50 years, from conservative Barry Goldwater to liberal Morris Udall, McCain retorted: "I'm duty bound to embarrass a Democrat whenever I can."

When reporters later asked McCain about planted questions, he feigned insult and injury and denied any such ploy. Editors in Phoenix were informed of McCain's deceit. After a news story and editorial appeared, McCain went into meltdown, shrieking on the phone: "I know you're out to get me!" (Several years later, McCain admitted the dirty trick and apologized to Mofford, who was then out of office.)

When Barbara Barrett, wife of Intel CEO Craig Barrett, ran against McCain's protégé, Gov. Fife Symington, McCain offered to buy her out of the 1994 GOP primary. She refused. Furious, McCain threatened revenge. Barrett lost, but Symington later was forced out of office after being convicted of seven counts of fraud (his conviction was overturned and is under appeal). McCain's wife was a front-row regular at Symington's criminal trial in Phoenix. McCain still calls Symington "my friend."

While Barrett, a successful attorney, emerged mostly unscathed, others weren't so lucky. Maricopa County (Phoenix) schools superintendent Sandra Dowling, a Republican, refused McCain's demand to abandon support of Barrett. Dowling told Morley Safer during a 60 Minutes interview about Arizona politics (which never aired) that McCain exploded and threatened to "destroy" her. Thereafter, her son lost his appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, where McCain sits as an ex officio member of the Board of Visitors. McCain denied any connection. Even former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, McCain's onetime senior aide who considered succeeding him in Congress, was purged from the senator's circle for investigating Symington and refusing to seek McCain's advice as a loyal understudy.

More of McCain's style:

McCain indulges in hypocrisy with a flair. He attacks tobacco but ignores alcohol. Why? His wife's millions flow from the family beer and wine distributorship, Arizona's largest.

The affable, candid, gregarious candidate, who mingles with reporters and yuks it up in the back of the bus, is no friend of free speech, and merely tolerates and uses the press as part of his political strategy. In Arizona, McCain tries to subdue reporters by threatening to have them fired when he's displeased with their pieces. Upset about critical reporting in the Phoenix New Times by Amy Silverman, McCain complained to her father, Richard, general manager of the Salt River Project, an Arizona hydroelectric utility. McCain's intent seemed clear: muscling the federally chartered SRP in hopes Silverman would pressure his daughter to back off.

One of my Arizona neighbors, Dianne Smith, wrote McCain protesting his criticism of Anita Hill in confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. A widow then in her sixties, Smith was flabbergasted when McCain telephoned her, shouting at her for "questioning my integrity."

McCain promised Arizona voters, "I've never tried to exploit my Vietnam service to my country because it would be totally inappropriate." But his presidential campaign is festooned with reminders of his POW years, from campaign videos to speeches to best-selling books, trying to capture the veterans vote.

Even as he moralizes about corrupt corporate money, McCain rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars from Washington lobbyists and asks corporations for use of their jets for campaigning. Last year, the Washington Post documented thousands of dollars of donations to McCain's political war chest from K Street lobbyists who do business before the Senate Commerce Committee.

McCain himself has acknowledged that he intervenes before regulatory agencies with letters on behalf of campaign donors, but claims he's merely performing a "constituent service"--the same explanation he used when initially defending himself in the Keating Five scandal. As a peevish lobbyist told Newsweek: "He sees no connection between twisting our arms for money and then talking about how corrupt the system is."

The John McCain glamorized by the national media is a total stranger to Arizonans who are painfully familiar with a far coarser and more foreboding man. His victory in the New Hampshire primary may bring greater scrutiny. Instead of treating him as a lovable maverick and quotable long shot, the national media that have been fawning over him are certain to begin digging seriously into the McCain background that has turned so many of his home-state Republicans against him.

I was there, too

... with Romney and MLK and Gull.

Where were you?

.

Hirrary Finds Fortune in Crookies!

Funny topic at the poker table this morning ....

Where's the beef, Hirrary?

Hillary Clinton's (re)new(ed) donor list from the poverty rolls of inner-city migrants (legal and illegal) --------- delivered by the likes of hubby Bill's China-connection cohorts!

H'su sez family ties don't matter, eh?

Never mind that Hillary couldn't locate some of the donors. She donated (a portion) of the illegal funds to charity ....

Not sure which charity, of course.


Hat tip: Gull

.

Bill Clinton as America's New Image????

Uhhhh. No, thanks.

Unless, that is --- America wants to rekindle the character of a perjurer, a rapist, a womanizer, a sleeze-ball who sold U.S. security secrets to China, and the same scum-bag who was getting a blow-job under the Oval Office desk while terrorists carried out the first attack in New York.

Gull has the Clinton interview link AND a few suggestions which may come in handy if the Clintoons are allowed to re-install their version of Camelot.

God Help Us. Indeed.

The Protest Message

THIS is the message that protesters wanted to convey this weekend in Washington.

Message received.

Now, take your Soros-funded anti-America protest-for-hire money and return to the rock you crawled out from under.

God bless our troops and their families.

Thanks to the thousands of Eagles and GOE III participants who confronted the cowards in Washington this weekend.

hat tip to Gull.

A Presidential View of America

Mitt Romney.



If video does not load -- view here.

Mitt Romney: Winner of the Iowa Straw Vote -- August 2007.
.

Insight into NAFTA and NAU

Excellent report and reactions over at Perish the Thought.

So who we gonna believe, the facts or our lying ears?

Mitt Unleashed

And still respectful.



This host should stick to weather and local grange reports. Reading a book does NOT an authority make ....

Harvesting Grapes from the Wrath of Illegal Immigrants

But not so fast, there, Broad -- I mean, Braud.

"Oregonians for Immigration Reform" have found true love -- in the form of a fancy, expensive grape harvesting machine that goes by the sexy name of New Holland Braud.

According to the Oregonian the anti-immigration group is
touting "the European machine as a beacon of a future without illegal labor."

Jim Ludwick, president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, learned that a New Holland Braud grape harvester had been sold to a vineyard in McMinnville, Ore., last year.

It picked 3.5 tons of pinot noir grapes in 20 minutes with three workers,
the Capital Press article said. Usually that would have taken 34 workers an
hour.

Finally, Ludwick had an Oregon example to make his case. He began to tout the New Holland harvester in speeches, as well as to state legislators, members of Congress and radio talk-show hosts.

"This is what modern societies do," he said. "They mechanize and wean
themselves off cheap stoop labor."

That may well be true, but let's ponder the implications. The adoption of
mechanized agriculture as a tactic for combating illegal immigration
simultaneously accepts the theory that the jobs being done by illegal immigrants are jobs "Americans don't want to do" and abandons the hoary anti-immigration plank that demands secure borders to "protect American jobs." Mechanized harvesting means fewer jobs, period. And of course, even as it reduces the number of available jobs, it does absolutely nothing to alleviate the pressure that pushes immigrants across borders, legally or illegally, in search of a better life. In fact, if more mechanized harvesting of crops that have hitherto been out-of-bounds for robots leads to greater efficiencies for American farmers, allowing them to compete even more effectively with farmers in developing nations, it could conceivably make those farmers even worse off, and contribute even more to their motivation to pick up and move.

Your basic neoclassical economist will tell you that anything that makes a
sector of an economy more efficient will generate capital that can then be
plowed into other sectors of the economy, creating more jobs and prosperity for all. From this perspective, the prospect of a future in which robots do all the hard manual labor is nothing to worry about. But a growing body of research, spearheaded by Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, suggests that technological progress may be a bigger villain, in terms of contributing to growing income inequality in the world today, than everybody's favorite boogeyman, globalization (in which category we will include outsourcing, offshoring and worker migration). At best (or worst) globalization plus technology are together putting the squeeze on
everyone who doesn't have the skills or education to thrive in our increasingly technologically mediated world.

Reducing the number of available "stoop labor" jobs without simultaneously beefing up investments in education and job training and social safety net protections -- not just in the United States, but everywhere -- seems a bit short-sighted. If technological change really is contributing significantly to growing income inequality then the world is facing much bigger threats than anything posed by "illegal labor."

.

.

Celebrating America

From sea to shining sea!

Happy Birthday, America --

An "Over-the-Hill" Coalition Tribute -- July 4, 2007

Immigration Issue Remains

No matter what dems (and especially Harry Reid) want us to believe -- the immigration reform issue is not dead. This current bill was hatched behind closed doors; look for more under-handed deals to be in the works.

Meanwhile, here's Mitt Romney's stance on Immigration reform.



Don't let the Senate or the House dems try to slip another bill through on this critical issue.

Jack Murtha Eats All Fat --

-- from the pork barrel, that is. He's both a boor and a hypocrite.



Democrat and ethics are like water and oil. There is no mix.

Why Not Drop Back-Taxes for EVERYONE?

Something is rotten in Denmark Washington right now. It must have happened on the way to the backroom to negotiate the Immigration Reform Bill with Ted Kennedy and John McCain.

At first the President says he wants illegal immigrants to pay back taxes.

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship ...

Then the figure of "the last three years' taxes" came up.

Now it's NO back taxes to be paid.

Why not just drop back-taxes for "regular" citizens, too, Mr. President?

New O-T-H member Humbug and Gull weigh in ....

Politicizing America's Tragedies Must STOP!!!

I stand with the Over-the-Hill coalition in declaring my anger and dismay at the allegations discussed below.

Did Howard Dean and democrat leaders instruct the governor of Kansas to deliberately lie about the availibility of National Guardsmen and equipment to bring relief to the victims of a recent tornado?

If she lied to perpetrate discredit to the President, to the Iraqi War, to the National Guard and attempted to misrepresent the federal government's ability to assist it's citizens in a national disaster, she should be removed from office.

From Perish the Thought.

Did DNC Tell Kansas Gov. to Lie?

FLASHBACK to Katrina and claims that federal authorities failed
to respond appropriately .....

This is a radio interview of the breaking story from Hannity
Radio.

Check out the ONLINE trail of posts, letter from a DNC attorney
to FreePress and the radio station, and comments from PowerLine blog.

From a FreePress post:

I was listening to the Quinn & Rose show this morning on XM radio when
Host, Jim Quinn told his audience that Howard Dean called Kansas Gov. Kathleen
Sebelius early, around 5 am, one morning after the tornado had destroyed the
town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado
and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response
to the aftermath. He also said that she, Gov. Sebelius, called Senator Sam
Brownback's office only to learn he wasn't there but then called him on his cell
phone and reached him while he was in his car were she confessed to him that she
had been instructed by her party leadership, (more specifically, Howard Dean) on
how to politicize the tornado's destruction of Greensburg and attack the White
House and the Iraq war for a seemingly slow response. She reassured the Senator
that her allegations didn't blame him or Pat Roberts, also a Kansas Senator, for
the lack of immediate response. That would explain her public statements to the
press that proved later to be untrue. She made statements to the effect that the
Iraq war and the deployment of the national guard units to Iraq from her state
has left Kansas without the equipment and man power needed to respond more
quickly to the tornado's aftermath. This all turns out to be false and the
governor herself has back tracked on her own claims. Mr. Quinn also revealed
that she confessed to Brownback that she couldn't pass up such an opportunity
like this to attack the President whose approval ratings, in this hostile
political climate, is so low. These revelations are startling and if true should
call into question the governors competence and her judgment. Quinn adamantly
stressed that his source, who he didn't name because he was sure it would
jeopardize his job, was extremely reliable and in a position that would give him
direct knowledge of these revelations.

From the DNC letter to FreePress:

The statements quoted above are false and defamatory, are libelous and
slanderous, and clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC's operations and
ability to solicit support and raise funds by prejudicing the organization in
the the eyes of Democratic Party supporters and the public. For these reasons,
we demand that FreeRepublic.com (i) immediately cease and desist from further
dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in
substance and (ii) immediately post a retraction of these statements in a
location on its web page at least as prominent as that on which the original
story appeared.Please let us know by noon tomorrow (May 11, 2007) whether you
intend to comply with these requests.

A PowerLine attorney responds:The attorney who sent the letter
on behalf of the DNC is attorney Joseph Sandler, representing the Democratic
National Committee. In my view, Sandler is a thug representing a bunch of
reprobates and bullies. Here's why. Under the First Amendment, as construed by
the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard as to whether they are false or not. Accordingly, our reader's Free Republic post based on the statements of Jim Quinn is constitutionally immune from a defamation claim. Whether Quinn and those who broadcast his program have such immunity is a different question, but the same constitutional protection applies to them. Professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh coincidentally makes a closely related point based on the Sullivan case today. "Actual malice" is a tough standard for public figures to overcome. That's why defamation claims by public figures have essentially disappeared since the Sullivan case. Under the Sullivan case, the First Amendment affords wide latitude for the discussion of public figures as well as issues of public
concern.Sandler's letter to Free Republic incorporates no element of "actual
malice." It is couched in the traditional common law of defamation that the
Supreme Court killed for public figures in the Sullivan case. Sandler's letter
carries Governor Dean's denial of Quinn's assertions, but it does not even
allege that Jim Quinn had knowledge of the statements' falsity or made them with
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.We therefore associate ourselves
with our reader's statements regarding Governor Dean and invite Mr. Sandler to
sue us for defamation as he threatens to sue Free Republic. This is to put him
and his client on notice, however, that we intend to seek our attorney's fees
under federal law for the assertion of a frivolous claim if he does so.

If any of the above is accurate, all parties involved in this lie should be immediately removed from office.

Run, Fred, Run -- This Way Out, Fred!!

Susan Estrich is right on this point:

The press is famous for goading people into the race and then turning on
them once they get in. It's not a conscious strategy; it's just that the press
always has an interest in a new face in the race, especially a colorful one; but once he's in, "fairness" requires the press to be equally savage to him as it is to the other shrunken heroes in the contest.

What idealistic conservative doesn't want Fred Thompson? Many more than the realistic conservatives, I'd guess.

Call me a realistic conservative. A moderate realistic conservative. Mitt Romney is my candidate of choice. He declared his candidacy up-close and early. So did most of the other candidates. Serious candidates, that is.

I'm bored by hearing "Fred will declare later ...." Later? What the heck does that mean? What's he waiting for?

Either he's running or he isn't.

If he isn't, he's baited a few conservatives and collected sufficient speaking fees to promote his movie career. And idealistic conservative don't like being baited. And they have only one movie hero. (Make that two, if you've read Gull's blog.)

Yep, idealistic conservatives (and most all of us) like folks who stand tall and speak plain English while looking your straight in the eye. But don't bait them. Especially don't bait them after they've built up this mythocal image of some Reaganesque figure who's gonna swoop back into the political arena and carry them to victory.

Better let people know what you're gonna do, Fred. Fast. If you wait 'til summer to declare or declare not to declare, tempers will likely flare a bit more in the heat of the season. Campaign season, that is.

And no matter what you decide, mainstream media and every cable news channel will wonder aloud: why did it take him so long? What IS he afraid of? What was he waiting for? And the seeds of doubt will be planted .....

Come on in, Fred. Don't delay the inevitable. That is, if you're actually gonna come on in.