Sotomayor Bores on Purpose: She’s Looking to Get Hired

By Anthony Bialy

A reality show about, sigh, soon-to-be-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings would be too dull for even Al Gore’s television station, if that’s possible. While her anti-nunchuk rant may have infuriated each and every ninja in the Senate, most of her statements have been Wonder Bread-bland. She’s ironically depicting herself as being more inoffensive than an Osmond.

Of course, this stands as remarkably sudden turnaround for the nominee: she’s instantly become unerringly sympathetic to those who support gun rights, has remained partly coy on the decidedly straightforward subject of abortion, and abruptly claims that her complexion doesn’t make her wiser.

But she’s flipped into tedious mode for a reason: the candidate is applying for a sweet gig. Sotomayor is undergoing a job interview, and she’s naturally going to be either positive or vague about her qualifications in the hope that the hiring managers won’t notice her rising red flags. She’s attempting nothing more than to gloss over her résumé’s rough patches. The native of the, let me double-check, Bronx is doing everything she can to downplay her infamous alleged richness of experience.

After all, Supreme Court Justice is a recession-proof job no matter what else President Obama unleashes on the poor economy. It comes with other benefits, too: the occupation currently pays $208,100 per year, offers a long summer recess, and requires no travel or heavy lifting. And, it’s of course a career for life once you land it.

Justice Samuel Chase was impeached but not removed in 1805; he was the first and last person to face an attempted banishment. At this point, a judge would have to get caught selling meth to war orphans on the court’s steps to put his or her employment status in danger.

It’s steady work during a time when the phrase “government job” may soon become redundant. Even better for Sotomayor, none of her bizarre decisions can be overturned by the Supreme Court if she’s herself on it; at worst, she’ll only find herself voting in the minority. This post would remove her chance of ever again being embarrassed by reversals.

Despite the procedure’s importance, many interviewers have been too busy inking their “HIRED” stamps to ascertain whether the aspirant deserves the post. Most glaringly, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy cut off his New York counterpart Kirsten Gillibrand for sucking up to Sotomayor for too long. The Senate has reached a new low even by its own modest standards when someone like Leahy thinks a colleague is being too fawning toward a perfectly liberal future Court seat-filler.

It’s all dreadful to endure. The most exciting moments of the hearings will continue to be when rudely protesting dunces in the crowd interrupt with shrieks regarding their hostility to her nomination. And even those incidents will only be interesting because of the possibility that the loudmouths might deservedly get pepper-sprayed or tasered.

The only chance for a truly compelling event would be if Republican senators displayed any willingness to stand up for conservative ideals. Namely, they could call out Sotomayor for her obviously ingrained hostility to judicial restraint. That’s especially true in light of her novel claims that she’s now keen about adhering to the Constitution.

Opposition party members could focus on how her recent statements obviously conflict with her record. All they would have to do is highlight Sotomayor’s curious willingness as a member of the judiciary to pass and approve laws; making up policies herself is a type of governmental efficiency we don’t need. Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, and maybe Jon Kyl are at least trying to show that she doesn’t deserve the position despite her salesmanship. But they’re going to end up being a minority of the minority.

Instead, most Republican lawmakers on the whole will lamentably acquiesce during the time between now and the vote. They’ve decided that, since they comprise only one-third of the Senate, the best strategy is to concede and be thankful the applicant isn’t even worse; oddly, they’re acting as if yielding will slingshot them back into power.

Their turnstile mentality means that Sotomayor will succeed in getting promoted from the Court of Appeals despite her evasiveness during the hiring process. The reluctance on the questioners’ part to provoke controversy makes for immensely uninteresting television. Oh, and it also leads to another activist landing on the Supreme Court.


Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and "Red Eye" Conservative in Western New York

We are a Center-Right Nation

Image by kimberlyfaye via Flickr

By Gayle Plato

Gallup Poll gives a clear snapshot of the country, we are a center-right nation, and accordingly, we see a trending toward more conservative values. Not since the mid 1990s, has the power in Washington presented such a paradox. We have a liberal Congress and White House, but we the people are not leaning left (Gallup Poll: http://tinyurl.com/loaftf).

The Contract With America, of the Republican revolution in Congress,1994, gets mentioned regularly in political circles. Yet the reality of it, what it was, and how it created a framework of service-oriented representation has not been paralleled. It made the careers of the creators and household names of some legislators. The Contract With America was a modern day Gettysburg Address in the truest sense of each document. Both were concise addresses to the people, timely, and deep with meaning

On April 15, 2009, I spoke for three small minutes, freezing from an odd Arizona cold front, confronted with protesters yelling in front of me. My Tea Party moment was not stellar: a bit nervous, and lost in the shuffle of being the inadvertent opening act to Arizona Representative John Shadegg, I stood there next to him, seeing former representative, JD Hayworth a few yards away on the radio; I felt odd. What a difference 15 years makes.

In late 1994, I was making a presentation at a workshop for educators about 'Resiliency.' It's basically the opposite of at-risk programming, with a focus on implementing protective factors, creating an environment of respect and mentorship with people, and a deep desire to achieve personal best. At-risk is about victimization of the soul, and funneling money at crisis intervention of victims. Victims are real and need help, but in order to stop building victims we need to foster social success. We need intrinsic, inalienable understanding of self-worth: resiliency.

At the presentation, I was asked to offer a document or professional article that exhibited resilient language and fostering of personal accountability. Most went to educational jargon; I went to current events. To a group of liberal educators, in a nice hotel ballroom in sight of the Space Needle, with roasty aroma of brewing espresso wafting in, I handed out a copy of the Contract With America.

You'd have thought I asked the folks to drink my Grandma's lukewarm Sanka decaf. I was literally a lead balloon bottoming out in front of my peers. I heard a colleague, I felt a friend, leaning in to another saying, "She's from Arizona so well, y'know..."

All I could do is move forward. I was younger than today and a bit better on my game. Yet, by the time I finished, the teachers could not deny that resiliency is apparent when expertly written. The Contract With America is the quintessential document of resiliency and I knew it. Fostering respect, limitations, concise defined parameters, and focus on the positive qualities of the citizen being courted, 'The Contract' is a brilliant piece of work.

On April 15th, I stood there next to two men who had come in to Washington D.C., under the Contract I valued, now here in Arizona at this 'Tea Party' with me, very distant from that eye I once had of the Needle. What happened to the Contract?

It seems to me, that we now have leaders who worry about themselves, their power, ongoing growth of government, and an oppressive angst about families, average Joes, just one pay check from being at-risk; all angry about disenfranchisement. We are smart enough to know when we had something and now see what we are losing. But the day was closing and sun setting on the Tea Party. I got up there and said, "It seems to me that these fifteen years later, our leaders are taking a contract out on America and I am not okay with that."

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is a true example of modern understanding of the audience, the issues, and the beat of the day. Lincoln’s words were brief and the speech cogent. As was the Contract With America, direct, offering heavy concepts in tight clips of modernity: it was it’s own paradigm shift. It stood alone.

Lincoln’s great speech didn’t wow anyone at the time read, and only now do we see the greatness of the brevity and grace in the simplicity. Jump to today and we see a need to rock the voters, wow the citizens, and rally the individual spirit. If the Tea Party movement is any indication, we are seeing a new wave of desire. The People want their country back and no more shell game political grifters of freedom.

Here is an excerpt of the Contract:

"As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act 'with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.' To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves."


From the The Contract With America, 1994, Republican Congressional Promise to the Voters.


Gayle Plato, 44, is a certified social studies teacher, and counselor with over 25 years experience working with children and families. Her experience includes work in higher education, local school districts, private practice, and a secondary level teacher of U.S. Government, Economics, and History. Gayle's writing has been featured at Arizona state blogs, parcbench.com, and at townhall.com. Gayle lives in Scottsdale, AZ, with her son; she can be reached at Twitter:@rightwoman, or platobesley@gmail.com

Is Universal Health Care a Moral Issue

by Kimberly Moore

It’s an interesting question and one that isn’t easily answered. I don’t know anyone who would see someone suffering and not want them to seek medical help. After careful consideration, I believe to force upon our country a universal health care plan is immoral.

There have been many figures announcing how many people in the U.S. are currently uninsured or underinsured. 46 million people seems to be the most common number as those uninsured. What we need to remember is this number is slightly elevated. According to "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin, 9.5 million were not citizens, 17 million lived in households with incomes over $50,000 a year, and 18 million were between the ages of 18-34 and were in good health or chose not to purchase it. So, if these numbers are correct, that would leave 1.5 million people without health insurance that are American citizens who couldn't afford it. But there is a solution to help many of those without health insurance.

In 1965, the Medicaid bill was passed when President Johnson was in office. Medicaid fell under the Social Security Act and currently Medicaid is the largest state expenditure. For those citizens who are unable to purchase health care insurance due to low income, they have the option to get the medical care needed. Children can be eligible for Medicaid, even if the parent is not. Lawfully admitted immigrants may also be eligible for Medicaid.

The moral issue is not if America has universal health care but rather it becomes a moral issue when asked how a decision is made under the universal health care regarding who lives and who dies. Oregon has a state-run health care program for those who live under the poverty line. According to ABC News, Barbara Wagner had lung cancer, which had been in remission, but returned. In order to live, her doctor prescribed medication that cost $4,000 per month. The state-run insurance program refused to pay for the medication but offered to pay for assisted suicide. So, basically, they are telling Ms. Wagner, we won’t pay to help you live, but we will pay to help you die. What kind of message is that sending to the rest of the U.S.? Unfortunately, I see this as a common problem if the universal health care plan is passed. At the request of her doctor, Ms. Wagner was able to receive her medicine free of charge.

There are concerns with the medical professionals staying employed in the medical industry or searching other employment should the universal health care plan be enacted. With the cap of bonuses that the White House is placing on the automobile industry executives, there will certainly be a cap on salaries of physicians and medical specialists. With government-run health care in the U.S., frustrations being felt by doctors to meet the demands of the government may force early retirement of physicians and encourage future students of the medical field to seek employment in other professions. Not only would we have a shortage of doctors, there will be an increase in patients and the quality of the health care will decrease while the wait time to see a doctor for diagnosis of a potential life-threatening ailment could be months away.

The Republicans have planned to unveil the Patients Choice Act on May 20, 2009. This is an alternative to what the Democrats are proposing. Rather than depending on the federal government to determine our health decisions, the Patients Choice Act will provide a tax credit of $2290 for an individual or $5710 for families each year to help those without insurance and use the tax credits to purchase insurance through a private insurance company. This is budget-neutral compared to the $2 trillion already considered for spending on universal health care. Also, the Patients Choice Act will help get people off of Medicaid because of the tax credit and the ability to choose their own doctor.

Until a final decision is made, think about this: the United States already has a universal health care plan. It is Medicaid and Medicare. For all others, it seems to be a choice. If health insurance is not offered by an employer, there are insurance plans available. Like car insurance, the best advice is to compare prices and benefits and choose which you can afford based upon your income. Do you really want to leave your life or death in the hands of the federal government? I certainly do not.

Tea Party Coverage, or lack thereof

On April 15, 2009, I awoke with a feeling of culmination. Here it is. Our time has come to make our voices heard. I get online to check the MSM news outlets. I'm searching and searching and then it hits me: They are honestly refusing coverage. But how can this be? I mean, newsworthy things come in positive and negative forms. Certainly the MSM doesn't "like" to have to cover stories about the deaths of children because that is depressing, but it's news, and so they do their job. Certainly there are some in the MSM who favor traditional marriage (while this is not true of most of them), yet they earnestly covered the recent state decisions on gay marriage. If Jessica Simpson takes a bad photo and seems to have gained weight, THAT is newsworthy to every news outlet around.
If you've been hiding under a rock, or if you happen to be one of the few people who don't watch FOX news, you may never have even heard of a Tea Party. I'll give you a quick refresher course. As a tea party co-organizer, I think I have a bit of expertise on the subject. Many Americans are sick and tired of out of control government spending, runaway powers being added to governmental agencies that were not bestowed in the Constitution, and taxation without deliberate representation. It's really that simple. It is not an attack on President Obama. It is an attack on an abuse of power that has been brewing for a very long time, and from both sides of the aisle. We're mad at Republicans and Democrats alike. If we're "haters" I guess the good thing about that is that we are equal opportunity haters. MSNBC had no tea party coverage on its home page. However, for those interested, one can read about the new report which labels those against abortion or illegal immigration as "right-wing extremists." One can read about exactly how "gays won a marriage victory in the Midwest." One can even read about Bo, the President's new dog. Over on CNN, you've got to search for it, but you'll find a report from Howard Kurtz, entitled, "Who's Promoting Tax Protests?"


In the video, Kurtz proclaims that CNN is not covering the Tea Party Protests. He notes that none of his cohorts are covering the protests, other than FOX News. He seems to think that by actually reporting on the news, FOX is a "co-sponsor." So are we to surmise from this that MSNBC was a co-sponsor for the gay marriage passage bills? Are they also co-sponsoring American Idol and the President's new dog? No, I think not. I think that they were either amused or intrigued by the aforementioned stories, and they thought that the public would be as well. I think back to the protests of other groups that I've seen on the news and I can't for the life of me understand why it could be that any reputable news source would PURPOSEFULLY and DELIBERATELY not cover the Tax Day Tea Party Protests. I watch the above video and I see Howard Kurtz smirking and laughing in a knowing way when he describes how MSNBC's coverage has consisted of Rachel Maddow "making fun of this thing." He has the audacity--I like that word, it caused so many people to think that Obama was a genius, so I'll use it here--to state that the FOX News analysts, "said little or nothing about the huge deficits run up by President Bush..." and his aim is clear. He honestly thinks that if he can falsely convince the public that FOX News analysts didn't speak up with dissent under President Bush, then the droves of American citizens who are mobilizing, should be dismissed. Kurtz sums up his rant by acknowledging that Hannity, Beck, et al on FOX are "commentators who are paid for their opinions." As such, they are not obligated to give anything other than their opinions. Seeing the MSM outright ignore the protests has enraged the FOX News commentators, I'm thinking it's because they have this strange notion that NEWS should be covered by those employed by news outlets. The MSM has not only taken a deliberate stand on the sidelines on this issue, but they have gone out of their way to discredit and belittle average American citizens. No one is funding this movement. We are choosing to use our money to make phone calls, pay for gas, and make photocopies. Sure, FOX News is a news outlet, and as such, is covering the movement. You might have missed that day in Journalism school. Newt Gingrich may be lending his name and he may be encouraging like-minded people to act, but he is being supportive, not giving financial support. We demand that our voices be heard, NOW. I've heard it said by some of the MSM who are mocking us, "if this outrage is real and not staged, where were all of these people before now?" Some of us weren't involved. Some of us didn't care about politics. I, myself, didn't have much interest in politics because I just thought it was a network of "good old boys" and that they didn't care what I thought. I will be the first to admit that myself and others like me were ignorant. But guess what MSM? We're standing up now. Regardless of when the problems started, regardless of who is in office, regardless of who you think is promoting our cause...WE THE PEOPLE have woken up. So in closing, I'd like to issue a public "thank you" to the likes of MSNBC and CNN for dismissing us. You've only managed to make us that more determined. I guess you could even say that by your inaction, YOU are the true force that is guiding us.

Conservatives are flocking to Twitter, but will the GOP ignore their flight.

As I mentioned in my last post, conservative grassroots organizations are exploding all over the internet. Groups on Facebook have doubled since the election, but no social media site has been more intriguing to conservatives than Twitter.

If you belong to Twitter, you understand what can only be called an obsession. If you do not belong to Twitter, you probably have no idea what I am talking about. Twitter is a communication forum that allows people to write comments no longer than 140 characters about whatever they wish. You have the ability to view others comments when you "follow" them and they have the ability to view yours if they chose to "follow" you.

It's not necessarily important to understand twitter itself, but how conservatives are using it to network, exchange ideas, strategize and even speak one on one with GOP members. In fact, one of the RNC chair candidates, Saul Anuzis, is a favorite on twitter because he openly communicates about his daily political life with average conservatives.

Twitter has become so popular with Conservatives that a new site has formed that tracks the top conservatives on twitter. Top Conservatives to Follow on Twitter was the brain child of Michael Leahy, an author and Republican strategist. Last week, Michael started the group which now consists of over 300 members with more vying for a position every day. It features some well known conservatives, such as Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina, Hugh Hewitt, and most recently Governor Mike Huckabee.

Twitter is only the beginning of the conservative movement on the net. It is allowing those the grass roots to communicate in a fast environment, organize quickly, and spread the message to an ever growing audience. It is only the beginning of the strategy to move conservatives and hopefully the GOP into the 21st century.

This couldn't come at a better time as reports state that President-elect Obama will be holding on to a campaign surplus of over $30 million. Aides closest to him say he may use the excess cash to build a massive grass roots program to support his agenda. The GOP will need it's own grass roots campaign to fight back.

It's already forming, but will they catch on in time to take the lead of it?

Why Republicans Should NOT Give Up On The Black Vote EVER!

Little of the information I am about to share will be taught to our children as part of history lessons in school.  Today, the liberal teachers' unions, one of the bosses of the Democrat party, ensure that our children only learn the lessons that they chose to teach.

For this reason, the Republican party must never give up on the black vote. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican for a reason.  You heard me right, MLK, Jr. was a Republican. At some point in the last few decades, Democrats won over the black community in this country.  I just don't understand why?

Thanks to a great woman, Frances Rice, I was truly educated about the history of my party and it's ties to the black community.  You can read her full article here.  Here are a few tidbits that I learned from her.

It was the Republicans who:

• Fought to free blacks from slavery (13th Amendment)
  
• Granted blacks citizenship (14th Amendment)
  
• Gave blacks the right to vote (15th Amendment)
  
• Passed civil rights laws of the 1860's, 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965
  
• Started Affirmative Action (not the quota system of today)
  
• Founded the historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  
• Sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools
  
• Started the NAACP

It was the Democrats who:

• Started the Ku Klux Clan
  
• Had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI
  
• Called Dr. King a "trouble maker"
  
• Were the party of Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and Socialism
  

It is the Democrats today who are running the inner-cities.  Look at Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Gary (Indiana).  They continue to hold their citizens hostage.  Have any of these cities been better off with Democrats in charge?  I have said this before....Democrats have been in charge in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for decades. Where has this gotten you?

Thanks to DBKP for introducing me to the following video.  I am not black.  I will not pretend to understand what someone who is black goes through or has gone through in their lifetime.  I believe the gentleman in this video can speak on the subject much better than I ever could.  He deserves a HUGE pat on the back for standing up for my party...the Republican party.

Obama: Call Me If You Need Me....Mean While I'm Stealing McCain's Ad Buys!!

Whether it was a political ploy or not, that is your decision to make about John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign. However, the absolute nonsense that the Democrats and Barack Obama are pulling right now are disgusting. (and that was putting it lightly.)

According to Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid stated yesterday that the Democrats were not going to go out on a limb and support this bailout only to have the Republicans and John McCain come out against it. Harry Reid told Lieberman that he needed John McCain to get this deal done. At about the same time, Henry Paulson called Phil Gramm, who was traveling with John McCain, and told him that he also needed John McCain to get the deal done.

Now today, after John McCain states that he has suspended his campaign, Harry Reid and the Democrats start shouting to the world that they don't need John McCain and that they have a deal already made. BULL! Even my Congressman, Jason Altmire, whom I never agree with, said that they did not have the votes to get this done. The Republican House was not on board with the deal regardless of what the Democrats were trying to portray to the public.

Why are Democrats in such a hurry to get this deal through? They were picketed by their own union supporters today. Senators and Congressman from BOTH parties have stated that they have received thousands of phone calls and emails from constituents stating that they are absolutely against this socialized bailout. The bottom line is they want to get something done........for the sake of saying that they got something done.

So, John McCain got phone calls saying he was needed by both Democrats and the Bush Administration. Did anyone call Barack Obama and say he was needed to seal the deal? Apparently not, because Barack Obama was still in Florida prepping for the debate that probably is not going to happen tomorrow night. Senator Obama, after stating that this was the most severe crisis our country has faced in decades, told America and Congress to call him if he could be of any help.

What else was the Obama campaign doing while John McCain was heading back to Washington? According to Fox News, the Obama campaign was out buying up the ad spots that McCain had pulled to suspend his campaign. Let me say this clearly, while John McCain suspends his campaign and heads to Washington to do what was ASKED of him, Barack Obama buys up ad spots on TV to hit McCain. Wow......if you don't think Barack Obama is playing politics right now............you have your head in the sand.

It's time to get smart......Republicans hold on to your principles it's going to be a bumpy ride, but socializing our financial market is NOT the answer!!

John McCain: Republicans Lost The Trust of The American People

In recent polls, 70% of the American people feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. I won't disagree there. It is not just the left and independents who aren't satisfied with how things have been going. Believe it or not, many Republicans and conservatives feel the same way.

The issue of this election is exactly what direction we want to take the country. On the left are leaders such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama. The reason that Hillary was so popular is because, right or wrong, people did not associate her with the left-wing fringe. Democrats took over in 2006 with a list of things they were going to accomplish, yet they haven't achieved much. It is the lowest rate Congress in history.

On the other side are leaders like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and the next generation of Republicans. Let's be honest......no one thinks that John McCain is a Conservative. He has reached across the aisle to the detriment of himself.

As a voter, it is easy to blame Bush. I voted for the guy and I blame him. In John McCain's speech tonight he stated, "the Republican party has lost the trust of the American people." The man trashed his own party during his own convention. If that isn't a maverick, I am not sure how much stronger that you can get. The fact is that Republicans did not lose in 2006 because they acted like Republicans, they lost because they forgot who they were.

Does this country want to follow the direction of Senator Obama and head toward the left? Do we want to follow Europe's failed economic policies, nanny state, and double-digit unemployment? Do we want to raise taxes, increase spending, and regulate free speech? Europe has already thrown out the left and brought back the Conservatives.

or

Do we want to lower corporate taxes to bring business back home? Do we want to use our natural resources and protect our national security? Do we want all children to be able to attend good schools instead of being stuck in schools that create the poverty and disenfranchisement that is being repeated every year?

No party is perfect. No politician is either. I believe that John McCain can take back the Republican party and put it on the road it should have been on for years. He may not be a great orator. We will concede that point, but he has a proven track record of getting things done.............whether we like it or not.

John McCain Should Thank Barack Obama

John McCain should take a moment to thank Barack Obama. For what you may ask? Barack Obama did the one thing that John McCain has been unable to do in the last few months.

HE MOTIVATED THE REPUBLICAN BASE!

Many of us, including myself, have been uninspired by the candidate, John McCain. Although we respected the man, the candidate has left something to be desired. But after my own blog yesterday and reading so many other blogs and even the MSM today, it is clear that there is a new found excitement about our candidate.

In the last few months, so many of us were voting against Barack Obama more than we were going to vote for John McCain. However, that changes as of today. With Barack Obama's performance on Saturday, it is not only apparent that John McCain can win, but that he will win.

It is obvious that Obama's stance on abortion should make every christian cringe. However, that is not the only thing that will energize the base. The way that Barack Obama dodged and weaved anwering many questions left something to be desired.

His stance on Supreme Court justices was comical. He almost called Clarence Thomas not experienced enough. He would have given the Republicans the best sound-byte ever. Had he actually used the word experience, he would have guaranteed his defeat. The comparisons of experience level between Obama and Thomas would have made for great foder.

The fact that Obama's surrogates were immediately out accusing both McCain and Rick Warren of cheating should prove that his camp is worried about his lack-luster performance. For them to be such bad sports about the whole thing, just motivates us even more.

You have to give credit where credit is due. John McCain did a great job, but Obama made him look decisive and commanding. He made John McCain look, well.....like the next President of the United States.

Failed Energy Policy

We are a country of innovators. We lead the world in development. We battle to be the best in technology on a day to day basis. Yet, when it comes to our energy policy and energy independence we are a third world country. Can you imagine someone calling the United States of America a third world country? We are unable or apparently unwilling to move ourselves to the twenty-first century.

How did we get here...to this time and place where we allow our national security, our economy, and our livelihood to be controlled and dictated by our enemies. Why has congress still not acted on the one thing affecting every person in this country? Are we truly so divided that we would allow this great nation to suffer for the success of one party over another?

One of the people who I have recently debated on a few blogs asked me what Melissa Hart, my previous House representative, and George Bush had done over the seven years she was in the House to tackle the energy crisis. I have to thank Mike because it made me invest even more time researching this issue and here is what I found.

In 1996, President Clinton vetoed a bill that was passed by the House and the Senate to begin drilling in ANWR.

In 2001, just after 9/11, President Bush pushed his energy agenda. At that time, the House was led by the Republican party, but the Senate was still controlled by the Democrats. The House passed a bill that would have allowed drilling in ANWR, as well as increased nuclear power, and put additional money towards alternative energy. The Senate shot down this bill. A similar bill was also shot down by the Senate in 2002 and 2003.

In 2004, the Republican party took over the Senate. Surely they did something at this point to solve our energy crisis. Again the House pushed through an energy bill. This time, the Democrats led by Senate Schumer of New York led a filibuster which kept the bill from coming up for a vote. They wouldn't even allow a vote. This filibuster continued and in two years the bill was never voted on.

In 2006, the Democrats took over both the House and the Senate. After two years in power, we have a real energy crisis that is now affecting our economy and our daily lives. I understand the knee jerk reaction of some to blame the President for the economy and the situation we find ourselves in today, but if you look back over the last twelve years, there is only one party that has held us hostage..................and it's not the Republicans.

Over 80% of Americans today say that gas prices are affecting their lives. Over 71% of Americans are for drilling in the OCS and almost as many are for drilling in ANWR. Apparently while Congress was on vacation, they heard an earful from their constituents. There are four months until the elections, take a look at who will do something about real energy independence and who will keep talking about energy independence.