I am growing more and more frustrated with my party as golden opportunities to gain public favor slip past each waking moment.

Gas is averaging about $4.10/gal right now. Drilling here in the US is a plain and simple solution, a win-win for everyone. It will create jobs, reduce our dependence on geopolitical enemies, and most importantly, greatly reduce the cost of gasoline. Why do Democrats insist on punishing the oil companies, the only group of people trying to get gas into our cars? And why do people support Democrats in their endeavor to keep gas out of our cars? For all their posturing of saying they are "for the poor," it is the poor that are getting hurt the most by these prices. I guarantee you that the wealthy aren't batting an eye as they pay $80 to fill their tanks. The guy making $50,000 for his family of four is in serious trouble. And the Democrats claim that they care about these people? Pathetic!

If the GOP could expose how worthless the Democrats are, and how incredibly beneficial to everyone a domestic drilling initiative would be, we could be sailing into a newfound majority in November. The RNC has plenty of money; it should be spending it on commercials and campaigning for any congressman that can go out and convince people that it is the Republicans that want to solve the energy crisis! The days of $2.00/gal gas and no more checked baggage fees are right around the corner if someone would please draft some legislation and force a vote. It doesn't help that McCain is out there offering $300 million of taxpayer dollars to someone who invents a battery. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

Another exposure of the McCain campaign's inadequacy and lack of grapes (pardon the expression) has to do with one of McCain's advisers making a very true and accurate statement: A terrorist attack would help Republicans in November. Of course, Obama is out there using his favorite substitution for the word truth: "disgrace," and the McCain campaign is apologizing left and right. In my mind, this is a golden opportunity to turn it around on the Democrats. First, say that it is a true statement. Second, explain why. McCain should say the following:

"Mr. Obama has called Mr. Black's comments regarding terrorism a 'disgrace.' But why? Why is it a disgrace to point out the truth? Perhaps it only is when it implicates your own party. Mr. Black did not express his wish for a terrorist attack. He simply stated that were one to happen, my party would benefit. This is unquestionably true, and the only way Mr. Obama can combat this comment is by slandering it as a disgraceful statement. He cannot address the meat of the issue, despite his claims to be 'only about the issues,' because he knows that the Democrats, his own party, has been attempting to undermine every attempt Republicans make to stop terrorists in their tracks. The past 7 years have been the longest time in nearly three decades without a terrorist attack on our soil, all due to Republican policy and initiative and no thanks to Democratic stalling and obstruction."

Or something to that affect. In a USA Today/Gallup poll, in all major issues, McCain and Obama virtually tied, except for terrorism, which had McCain leading by over 20 points. That sentence can be scientifically proven to be true!

And finally, a quick note on campaign finance. McCain devised the famous (or, in my case, infamous) McCain-Feingold Act, which hacked away at the First Amendment like George Washington at a cherry tree. That aside, it provided for public financing. If a candidate chooses to use public financing, they can only privately raise up to $80 million. Another provision is the limit on personal donations, setting the cap at $2300. However, so-called Political Action Committees (PACs) can donate as much as they want.

Obama is raising a great deal, and has decided to forgo public financing to avoid the $80 million limit. (This, by the way, after a pledge to use public financing back in the beginning of his campaign. In fact, when he announced this decision, he said he still "supports the concept of public financing." Just not when it limits his ability to raise money, I suppose.) However, in the same speech in which he announced this, he derided McCain for raising money from PACs (which have no limit) and other private means that aren't regulated. Let me get this straight. Obama is accusing McCain of raising money from groups that don't have caps on their donations. But at the same time, he is using a loophole of sorts to avoid capping his total fundraising, a cap that McCain still has to abide by. This is textbook hypocrisy, and textbook liberal. "I have decided to forgo public financing, even though I support the concept." Translation from liberal-speak: "Government intervention is great! Just not when it hurts me."

Where are the Republican guns blazing? Where is the inspiration? There is so much there for the taking. All it takes is a little education to the American people and this country would re-ignite in conservatism and against the knucklehead running on a campaign of tricks and lies.

I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama has an 85% chance of being nominated for the Democratic Party. It is going to be a close race, and the superdelegates will be split very close down the middle. After all, even now it is only a difference of 1-2 votes, and only about 2/3 of them have checked in. But they will follow the delegate count and nominate Barack (even though I still believe this to be a mistake). I also believe that if this happens, Hillary will be his running mate; this is the only solution I can come up with that could speed up the healing of the wounds from this ridiculous nomination process.

So what is the deal with Barack Obama? Today's sermon in Church brought up the Rev. Wright. It wasn't what we have been hearing on the tube, however; the priest actually quoted Wright's NPC speech from a couple weeks ago. He used a short excerpt regarding the need for a radical change in the way society elevates some and denigrates others; how some are "more equal" than the rest. Today being the Christian feast of Pentecost, celebrating the Holy Spirit's descent from heaven, the priest emphasized this need for change toward a better world.

But where must this change originate? Here is where the interpretations differ between my priest and Rev. Wright. This change comes from prayer and a call for the Holy Spirit's presence in our lives. Real, radical, positive change is inspired by God. And here is where Barack Obama comes in. He believes that he is God. He is the source of change. He can make this world a better place! His silver tongue has gotten people to faint over the way he presents his ideas to radically alter the way society thinks and acts. But the problem is, this change cannot originate with him. It cannot originate with anyone. It has to be inspired by God.

Granted, not everyone in America is a Christian. There is even a sizable population that doesn't believe in any type of higher power. But a belief in something greater is innate in our government system. The Founders, while not necessarily Christians and some even atheists, gave the government legitimacy by stating that its power is derived from "God." Our currency says "In God we trust." Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence refer to God frequently. While separation of church and state is important, the government has to admit that its government comes from something else. Once that principle is abandoned, the government becomes all-powerful and replaces God. This results in socialism and tyranny.

The problem with Barack and many liberals is that they have no problem with this. They want the government to control everything. It's not about success, it's about power and control. Tax hikes, healthcare, social security, welfare: all programs to make you more dependent on the government rather than on yourself. The Founders would be shocked to see what we're wasting our money on right now. It is sad and unfortunate that it has reached what it is now, and it will only get worse if a liberal is elected.

Barack Obama does not seem to believe in America. He has never once made a statement one can claim is truly patriotic; his appreciation of the American dream is a narrow view of his own success from a lower class. He overtly refuses to wear a flag pin; while many liberals may tell me this is irrelevant and a stupid argument, I will disagree. Our flag is revered here more than any other flag in the world is revered by its people. It is a symbol of freedom, democracy, justice, righteousness; it reminds us of that incredible story of the Revolution. By not wearing it, many Americans (including myself) are confused and slightly offended by his disregard for a country we believe in and hold dear. Only 45% of voters believe Obama shares their values, while 55% believe John McCain does.

I do not like John McCain's policy initiatives because they compromise with liberalism far too much. I do not want him elected because of the redefinition my party will suffer. But compared to Obama, he is a far better choice. He loves this country, nearly losing his life for it. He believes in it and understands what it's about. I believe Hillary Clinton does as well, which is why she is the one I want to win.

Obama has friends that overtly hate this country and its ideals. His mentor of decades is on video for saying some of the most horrible things you can imagine about the U.S., and he is very close to a known terrorist who has bombed government buildings and wants to bomb more. His wife has stated that she is only proud to be an American now that voters are choosing Barack, and she claims Americans are "ignorant" when it comes to race relations. Hamas has stated that they support and respect Barack Obama, to which one of his staffers offered thanks! He himself has stated that middle Americans cling to guns and religion and antipathy towards people different than themselves to help guide them through times of economic trouble. I see no evidence that he is in this for America; he is in this for himself. It is just a job promotion to a post of more power.

This scares me. I believe the voters will see this and flock to John McCain. It happened in 2004: even the exit polls had Kerry winning handily. But people knew that Bush loves America and wants it to succeed. McCain is the one who wants this country to do well. While I disagree with his methods, he is the lesser of evils.

We have to keep this man out of the White House.

Charlie Gibson and George Stephonopoupoppolis (spelling?) have left me shocked and awed, in the best way. Last night's debate on ABC, moderated by both these two ABC news anchors, exposed Clinton and Obama for the true liberals and, quite frankly, morons they are. Both proved their incompetence, lack of knowledge, disdain for America, and socialist initiatives that I am sure turned off the 10 million people watching last night.

Let's start with Obama. This man cannot string two words together without and "umm" or an "uhh" if his life depended on it. He is not articulate or a fluent speaker unless he has a teleprompter or transcript in front of him. I'll be the last to argue Bush is articulate, but at least he admits it. Obama is made out to be one of the best speakers in the history of presidential candidates, on par with JFK. Well I'll tell you, he is no Jack Kennedy.

He also is clearly oblivious to the way the economy works at all. The argument of whether or not income tax cuts or hikes help the economy is one that can be argued intelligently from both sides. Historical numbers can indicate the success of both cuts and hikes of the income tax. However, last night Gibson pressed Obama on the issue of the capital gains tax, a tax applied to companies on their profits. This tax trickles down to any stockholder that owns a stake in this company. During the Clinton administration, this tax was reduced from 28% to 20%. Bush then cut it further to 15%. Both cuts have resulted in revenue increases from this particular tax. It is agreed by any economist: cutting the capital gains tax will increase government revenue. More people invest in stock, and thus that 15% of a greater number becomes a larger amount of money than 20% of a smaller number. But Obama either doesn't understand this or doesn't care. When Gibson explained to him that a) cutting the capital gains tax increased revenue both times and b) 100 million Americans (that's about 1/3 of our nation's population) own stock and thus would be affected by a hike, Obama was oblivious. He was clueless. His response was virtually I don't know. (Quote: "It might or it might not. We'll just have to see how things are on Wall Street." Does he get that the capital gains tax can directly affect Wall Street's condition?)

His inability to defend his "patriotism" was also blatantly obvious. He was asked why he doesn't wear a flag pin. He claims that he has "never said that he wouldn't wear one." YOU DO NOT WEAR ONE, MR. OBAMA. He stated that he wore one recently at an event, but only after a disabled veteran asked him to. Last year at an event, he explained that he didn't want to wear the flag pin because he wanted to show "true patriotism" by stating his opposition to the war. So in effect, he isn't wearing it to cater to the kook left that is screaming "Bush lied, kids died" and blames America for everything. His ties to extremists were also brought up. He is "friendly" with a man who set bombs in the Pentagon and, after 9/11, claimed that they "didn't do enough." He served as a paid board member with him even after 9/11 and these comments. Obama tried to sidestep the issue saying it isn't important. But it is, and people have to understand this. Obama is unknown, and the people he is involved with are crucial to judging his character. No one will disagree when I say that the word of a politician is no good, especially a liar as skilled as Obama. When he is found "friendly" with a terrorist, "family" with a man like Jeremiah Wright, his wife calling America ignorant and that she hasn't been proud to be an American until now, a pattern of hatred and anti-Americanism emerges. He does not love this country. His comments in San Francisco display his dislike of the common man, the gun-toting God-fearing NASCAR fans in the heartland that make this country work.

Hillary's performance was equally amusing. Her approach, however, was probably much smarter. Will it pay off? I don't know. But she did the right thing. She knows she has Pennsylvania. She knows that it is unlikely she can change the minds of the people who really don't like her. Her job is to get the superdelegates to realize she is the only one with a real shot in November. She referred often to the "1990s," and how she would basically return our economic policy to those years (which were, we all agree, years of great economic prosperity). She dodged a bullet, not having to defend her husband's pardon of several terrorists of the group she accused Obama of fraternizing with, but I can explain it: it was to get the Puerto Rican vote in New York for her Senate race in 2000, not because of their ideology. (Not that I condone it, but it speaks to her character (or lack thereof) more than to her ideology.) She really didn't present anything new or revolutionary, and did not exhibit any ghastly lack of knowledge. She, like Obama, agreed to raise taxes on incomes over $250,000 but cut taxes on lower incomes, and also promised not to allow the capital gains tax go over "what it was in the 1990s" (i.e., 20%).

Both were either pandering or just again pandering to the left when their plans for lowering gas prices involved looking into price manipulation by the oil companies. Of course there is price manipulation, but it is by the Middle Eastern nations in OPEC that control our supply! And there is nothing we can do about that. But we can lower gas prices by either drilling our own oil or simply cutting gas taxes, as McCain has promised to attempt. He suggested a tax-free gas day on Memorial Day. Can you imagine tax-free gas? It would be over 50 cents cheaper in some states! That would also prove where the majority of the gas money goes: the government, not some CEO's wallet.

The Democrats are in crisis mode, and the party leaders have no idea what to do. Neither of these candidates can beat McCain. McCain is smart, has character, and has definite plans for our future. He clearly cares about America and our international interests. He has what it takes to win. Neither Clinton nor Obama do. It is McGovern all over again. The superdelegates were created after the McGovern fiasco, and this is exactly when it is time for them to hit code red. They have to choose a third nominee. I have no idea who. In fact, I don't think they have anyone. But if they don't they're definitely screwed. I don't think the DNC has the intelligence to make this move, but it's the only way they're going to win. Over 10 million viewers watched two idiots make complete fools of themselves on broadcast television. Not something the Democrats can be too happy about.

So all in all, a great night for John McCain. And a bad night for the Democratic Party as the sun sets on their presidential prospects.

I have openly stated in previous posts my opposition to John McCain. But I want to make it clear that these oppositions are purely based on issues. McCain has the most character and integrity of the three current presidential candidates; it's just a shame that he happens to be a liberal.

McCain believes what he says and has acted on it in Congress. For example, Barack Obama claims to be a unifier that will cross party lines and work with Republicans on issues. In his two years in the Senate, Obama has never drafted legislation with Republicans and has voted with his party 97% of the time. He has skipped "tough" votes that could come back to bite him in the campaign. If you really want someone who will work with both sides, vote John McCain. (This is, in fact, one reason I dislike him.) He has drafted controversial legislation such as the immigration bill (which was more pro-immigrant than Obama's "yea" vote on a border fence, even after he criticized conservatives for being too anti-immigrant) and McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, both of which have been extremely unpopular among his party's base.

McCain has refrained as much as possible from negative attacks on the two Democrats. While I am sure that will change once a nominee is chosen, he is not attacking Obama's idiotic comments about the U.S.'s China policy or Clinton's lies about Bosnia. Obama, however, has ridiculed McCain and said it was "about time" when McCain called for greater government intervention in the pay distribution of companies such as Bear Stearns. McCain even called Obama "qualified to be president." This shocked and disturbed me, but again, goes to his character. There is no need to say that; in fact, it is unwise to say that about your opponent even if it is true (which it most definitely is not).

He served in Vietnam, and actually believed what he was doing was right. He survived as a POW and didn't return to stomp on his own medals. He has been a man for the troops and for our noble venture in Iraq ever since it began over five years ago. His goal is success, regardless of the political circumstances.

The long and short of it is that I believe McCain is in this for America. He honestly thinks that he is making this country a better place, and as president can do so. While I disagree with much of his ideology, and do not want the failures of liberal policy being attributed to a newly defined Republican Party, I respect that America's interests are at heart, not his own. Clinton and Obama do not care about their party or their country; they are two selfish politicians fighting over a promotion. If either of them did care, they would step down for the sake of the voters. The fact that they haven't, and most definitely won't until the party votes, proves what is really important to them.

I am greatly disappointed that McCain is the nominee, and I am worried about the possibilities his presidency could bring both in our diplomatic relations and domestic policy initiatives. But one thing is for sure: he is by far the most qualified of the three to run this country, and has more character than the other two could ever have. And when he's sparring with one of these Dems in front of Tim Russert in the fall, this may be a big factor for the voters.

The Obama-Clinton battle is getting more furious every day, and is causing chaos and confusion among the entire Democratic Party. It has come to a point where no matter who is nominated, a significant number of Democrats will be greatly alienated; the question now is which candidate will create a smaller one of these groups.

Hillary Clinton wants this win more than anyone can imagine. This has been the plan of the Clintons since their aspirations began, and she is not going to let some junior senator newbie from Illinois ruin it because of a bunch of crazed lunatics that support him. Her gloves have truly come off.

Over the past few weeks, especially since the rejuvenation of her campaign on March 4, we've heard the bitter words being bounced around by these two candidates. Clinton especially has been noted as being extremely vicious toward Obama's campaign.

The most recent wave is Democratic Party relic and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first woman on a presidential ticket as Mondale's VP in 1984. She basically claimed that if Barack Obama weren't black, he wouldn't be anywhere near as successful in this election as he is.

First a quick aside as to the validity of this statement. It is curious. What are his merits? He is an excellent speaker, very personable, and says what we all want to hear. Are these really the only qualities that have led to his success? I'm not so sure. There are plenty of white politicians with the same qualities. Why aren't they leading a cult of delusional followers?

That being said, in the days since she said this statement, she has been bombarded by attacks from the media and the Obama campaign calling her a racist. Obama on the Today Show told Matt Lauer that he would never say Hillary has gotten to where she is because she is a woman. But Ferraro, being a tough and loud-spoken individual, is not backing down. Instead, she is stating how offended she is to be called a racist. All she did was make an observation about Obama's success and its relation to his skin color; she never said she preferred black or white, etc. etc.

The way Ferraro was pounced upon sounds awfully familiar to me...oh, that's right, that happens to every single Republican who even mentions race. "Macacca," which was used by the Democrats to tank a very successful and viable Republican Senator; many of Ann Coulter's comments; and even Rush Limbaugh when he claimed on ESPN that McNabb's success is due in no small part to his skin color.

It is fascinating to see the Democrats being shocked at the tactics that they have employed towards Republicans for so many years, but only when they are employed at each other. Articles pop up every day about how Clinton is doing some sneaky this or tricksy that, how she is throwing cheap shots or low blows. But we Republicans knew this would happen; we experienced them completely unleash their tactics on us for nearly a decade.

This, of course, is highly beneficial to the GOP, for multiple reasons. For one, McCain has no grapes, and his campaign has even issued "talking points" about what can and cannot be said about Barack Obama so as not to set off the sensitive issue of his race, middle name "Hussein," and other things. It appears that even Hillary is more readily going after Obama than McCain will, which is dangerous considering Obama's possible (if not likely) nomination.

But also, as the Democrats tear each other apart, the rift in the party will be far more damaging than the rift on the Republican side. Yes, many Republicans have their differences with McCain; but in the end, the party wins us over. (Who am I kidding, I don't think I'll be flicking that Clinton lever in November, regardless of my feelings about McCain.) We've been grappling with this party battle for decades. But the Democrats have never experienced such a split, and it should be interesting to see how this nominating process pans out for them, for us, and for the country.

The votes are in, and Florida Republicans have spoken: John McCain is their choice for the nomination.

McCain being the big winner, Giuliani was the big loser. Rudy was hoping for tonight to be his big break and the main entry into this race, his chance to break late as a top-tier candidate. But after losing big behind both McCain and Romney, the race has become virtually two-sided between these two. A blog rumored that Rudy was going to drop out, maybe as early as tomorrow, and throw his endorsement behind his "friend" McCain. While I still think it is premature to count Rudy completely out, his real chances vaporized tonight. A possible future move for him is as McCain's running mate, in exchange for his early departure and endorsement.

Mitt Romney was the surprise tonight. Just a week ago, he was down several points in the polls to even Giuliani. But he rebounded, even topping McCain yesterday for a little while. He has been within one point of McCain for the past few days. This is significant for a northern newcomer.

John McCain is the clear frontrunner after tonight, but Republicans have not decided. This is a battle about the future of this party, and it is coming down to electability vs. conservatism. While a McCain win would guarantee a Republican White House (and therefore protect us from the disasters of a Democrat president), a Romney win would guarantee the conservative leadership of our party and he could still win nationally. I do not want to see the Reagan coalition fail, as it most surely will under McCain.

Next stop: America. February 5th, is virtually a national primary, as 22 states take to the polls to choose a candidate. We should know who will be running in November after that night (provided there is no brokered convention in either party).