Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Christian Pastors Stand Up -- Doug Patton

September 29, 2008

Contrary to popular belief, conservative Christian pastors have never been monolithic in their willingness to engage in anything close to partisan political activity in their churches. The stereotypical perception of the “religious right” in America is a myth. I know. I was there in the cultural trenches in the mid-1990s, trying to inform Christian voters of the records of the candidates for office.

As a state executive director and organizer for one of the largest pro-life, pro-family organizations in the country, I was frustrated constantly by the reticence of pastors to allow even a simple, informative voter guide to be placed into their church bulletins. A handful was bold enough to speak out. Some were willing to allow the voter guides. Most were just plain timid and afraid.

Afraid of what? Why, the IRS, of course — or, as my great aunt used to refer to it, “the Infernal Revenue Service.”

Far too many on the Christian right have been bamboozled into believing that it is somehow against the law to engage in any sort of political activity whatsoever within the four walls of a church. In fact, many pastors are so paranoid about it they shun vital information that could help their congregations know right from wrong once they get into the voting booth.

Now comes word that a tiny cadre of three dozen or so activist pastors, working in conjunction with the Arizona-based religious rights legal firm known as the Alliance Defense Fund, are not only exercising their constitutional rights but also stand ready to challenge a 1954 amendment to the tax code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not “participate in or intervene in…any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

These church leaders have come to realize that there is nothing in the law that forbids them, as pastors, from telling their congregations whom they personally endorse — and why. And they are challenging the notion that they should be proscribed from putting forth a church endorsement based on a candidate’s positions on issues that may be contrary to the moral teaching of that church.

One of these pastors is the Rev. Ron Johnson, Jr., of Crown Point, Indiana, who says that ministers of the Gospel have a responsibility to guide their flocks in worldly matters, including politics.

“The issue,” says Rev. Johnson, “is not ‘Are we legislating morality?’ The issue is, ‘Whose morality are we legislating?’”

Although he has stopped short of endorsing Republican John McCain, Rev. Johnson has rightly told his congregation that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s positions on abortion and homosexual relationships are “in direct opposition to God’s truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures” and has shown slides in his church contrasting the two candidates’ views on key issues important to pro-family voters.

Of course, the Religious Left, especially as it has traditionally promoted liberal Democrats in black churches across the country, has been engaging in highly partisan political activity for as long as many of us can remember. In one particularly blatant case, I recall an inner city church van covered with political posters of Democrat candidates encouraging black voters to “vote Democrat.”

This van was sent out into the community to register Democrats, transport them to the polls and bring them to a makeshift Democrat campaign headquarters being run out of the church basement. When the state Republican Party chairman took photos of the van and sent them to the local news media, they were officially ignored.

It is encouraging to see a small but determined group of Godly men and women reach out to their congregations with the truth about Barack Obama’s radical political views and culturally toxic voting record. It is time for evangelical Christians to stop being taken in by lofty rhetoric. It is time for men of God to stand up and be heard on the great issues of our time.

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

Bank Takeovers/Sales and the Slipper Slope -- Patrick McPherson

In the latest government sponsored takeover, Wachovia Bank has been sold to the Citigroup. In the Washington Post today we are told that among other things:

"In exchange, the government would get a $12 billion stake in Citigroup, making it one of the largest shareholders in what would be the nation's largest bank. Sheila C. Bair, chairman of the FDIC, said the government's involvement was necessary "to maintain confidence in the banking industry given current financial-market conditions."

"Citigroup will join Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase in a small group of giants that have emerged from the crisis to dominate American banking. The three companies together would hold more than 30 percent of the nation's deposits. They would hold more than 40 percent of bank loans to corporations. They would be the issuers of more than 50 percent of the nation's credit cards. And they would each number among the five largest investment banks......"

Also, here is an important fact which explains why your presidential contestants are so gung-ho on raising the FDIC Insurance levels:

"The FDIC's guarantee of deposits is not preventing bank runs at Wachovia and elsewhere in part because the agency guarantees only about 63 percent of the money on deposit at the nation's banks. The rest of the money, more than $2.5 trillion, is not guaranteed because the account balances exceed the insured maximum. At the nation's largest banks, the share of insured deposits is only 56 percent."

Now, if all this doesn't make you feel happy and confident, just take an aspirin and check with your doctor in the morning.

Really, there is a fine line between capitalism and socialism and that line is rapidly eroding. Now we will have three huge banks holding 30% of all deposits, 40% of all commercial loans and 50% of all credit cards. And your government will have a stake in how at least one of these is run (that should be reassuring). Given the events of the last month or so, do you suppose anyone of these banks are less than too big to allow to fail?

Instead of dispersing the risk among many smaller financials whose bad management might allow them to fail (which of course would also dilute the FDIC insurance fund, resulting in increased insurance charges to the banks), they've just concentrated more consumer/corporate dependence on fewer banks which, incidentally, will result in less competition and provide more opportunity for bad decisions to impact the American tax payer.

Whether you are for the bailout or not, our country is on a very slippery slope.
Is it a wonder why the average American is confused?

Give me the Facts

Joe Friday would say, "Give me the facts, just the facts." For those of you who don't know or remember who Joe Friday was, check with Joe Biden who will probably tell you about the show 'Dragnet' which appeared on television some time after FDR went on television to allay concerns about the crash.

Anyway, from our friends at Fact Check via Real Clear Politics we offer you the following factual analysis of the comments made by Barack Hussein Obama and John Sidney McCain in their first debate:

FactCheck.org takes a look at some of claims in the first debate. Here's some of what it found:
* Kissinger did say he wanted "high level" talks with Iran, but, despite what Obama claimed, he didn't say at the presidential level.

* Obama did vote to raise taxes on people making as little as $42,000 a year, despite his denial.

* Although Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen did say a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous,” he was not talking specifically about Obama’s plan, as McCain claimed.

* Earmark appropriations have decreased over the years, despite McCain's claim that they have "tripled."

* Iraq has a $60 billion surplus, not the $79 billion Obama claimed.

* Oil imports run at $536 billion this year, not the $700 billion McCain claimed.

* 81% of households would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan, not the 95% he claimed.

* Workers would be taxed on the value of health benefits under McCain's plan, not employers, as Obama claimed.

* Obama would allow people to keep their current health-care plans or chose from private ones, despite McCain's claim that Obama wants a government-run health-care system.

* Gen. Eisenhower drafted a letter accepting responsibility if the D-Day invasion failed, not offering his resignation, as McCain claimed.

FactCheck details its research in the article."

Saturday, September 27, 2008

A different view of the bailout

While we at the Objective Conservative continue to hate the socialistic idea of government ownership of business or bailout of businesses, here is a more positive view of the $700 billion dollar effort by Larry Kudlow (as we strive to be fair and balanced--to the extent that we can).

See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/a_paulson_cantor_plan_is_a_win_win_for_taxpayers

Since we're on the topic, you might also consider the thinking behind those recalcitrant Republican rascals in the House who the media and the Democrats have accused of being the stumbling block in the passage of this. There is a reasonably good article in, of all places, the New York Times which you can find at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27repubs.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

The Debate

Well, no one made any major gaffes in the first debate. For our part we agree that Barack Huessein Obama survived pretty much unscathed, which to many will mean he looked presidential. We believe that anyone who doubted John Sidney McCain's ability because of his age has now had that fear allayed. Who won? The polls seem to say Obama, but we won't know until election day.

For those of you who missed what was really a very interesting debate, you can find the entire transcript of it at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_first_presidential_debate.html

or watch it at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/09/26/VI2008092603067.html?sid=ST2008092601943&s_pos=list

Day of Reckoning

We don't often agree with Patrick Buchanan, but his editorial, 'Day of Reckoning' is worth a read.
See it at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/day_of_reckoning.html

Friday, September 26, 2008


From today's Washington Post we learn that while congress is about to spend $700 billion of your dollars due to their lax oversight, they are also about to approve an omnibus spending bill with more than 2300 earmarks that will cost you a mere $6+ billion. According to the Washington Post:

"As Congress tried to cobble together a plan to spend huge sums on a financial bailout, lawmakers also moved Thursday toward final approval of an omnibus spending bill with more than 2,300 pet projects, including a $2 million study of animal hibernation.

"Many lawmakers had promised to go on a diet, but their appetite for the pet projects, known as earmarks, has returned as Congress finishes its work for the year and Election Day looms less than six weeks away.

"Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, calculates that earmarks account for $6.6 billion of the omnibus bill’s cost, which totals more than $630 billion. Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is on trial just a few blocks from the Capitol, appears to have gotten more earmarks than anyone else: 39 items totaling $238.5 million, according to the organization’s tally."

That's the same Ted Stevens who is being tried on corruption charges. When will it end?

Seems Nero (the congress) is content to play as Rome (our country) burns (goes to financial hell).

For the rest of the article, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/washington/26earmark.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Response to 'Foolish Consensus" -- G.R. Florine

In response to the World-Herald editorial , 'Foolish consensus', from last week, contributor G.R. Florine writes:

"It is not often that I fully disagree with a W-H editorial, or, when I do, question it's intellectual veracity. However, that has been the case with the one regarding Russia, entitled "Foolish consensus".

"Unfortunately, the editorial is sophomoric, and "foolish" on multiple levels!

"Initially, it is referenced that both Joe Biden and Sarah Palen have supported NATO membership for both Georgia and Ukraine. The writer castigates Biden and Palen, but the real issue here is that they are essentially supporting the "official" positions of their Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain. To take issue with their statements is rather silly - if you're going to argue the issue, then focus the arguments on the "campaign" positions!

"Secondly, the argument against "supporting" NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine is based upon the "obligation" of the U.S. (as well as other NATO members) having to go to war should Russia renew its aggressive, potentially imperialistic, policies. The objection by the writer is that the far-eastern and southeastern European areas are extremely unstable, and that, as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan, we just can't expose our armed forces to other major conflicts. Therefore, the U.S. must be extra "prudent" in its foreign policy endeavors. Now, on the surface, this certainly has some merit.

"However, when taking a more than cursory look at the realities, the writer trivializes and misinterprets the entire situation.

"First, why are the aforementioned areas of eastern Europe unstable? Strictly because Russia / Putin have chosen to create instability for the purpose of reasserting their territotorial / hegemonic ambitions. Taking advantage of what appears to be the U.S.'s over-extension in Iraq and Afghani-stan, along with the election gridlock in the U.S., Putin has decided to extend his influence. How far does he plan to go? Only he knows!

"Secondly, the writer, most unfortunately, channels Neville Chamberlain with the unbelievably irresponsible comments that "it would be utterly foolish for the United States to rush to commit itself to go to war with Russia over these fragile democracies (Georgia and Ukraine). A line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line was sensibly drawn after the collapse of the Soviet Union as countries . . . were righly brought under the NATO umbrella. Moving that line eastward . . .would raise direct and obvious risks for our country."

"I doubt very much that anyone is going to rush into a war with Russia (a catastrophic undertaking) barring an incredible provocation from Putin. But this assumption jumps from the proper under-taking of internation relations to Armageddon, without looking at any of the intermediate subtleties!

"Putin is aggressively looking to expand his "empire" while flush with natural resource funds. He is testing the West to find out just precisely how it will react! He will continue testing until he finds that there are no limitations to his excesses, or the U.S. and Europe stand "tough"! The West's threats to potentially take Georgia and Ukraine into NATO pose a threat to his ambitions.

"Would the writer, Chamberlain like, write off Georgia and Ukraine (and potentially other areas) to Putin? That's essentially what he's saying! Would he stop there? That didn't help with Hitler!

"No, merely the issue of "proposing" NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine becomes a giant bargaining chip for the West for the purpose of potentially limiting Putin's ambitions. Instead of being "foolish", it is the most responsible action the West can take, along with putative economic sanctions should Putin continue his behavior. Whether NATO membership comes sooner or later for such nations, it has to be on the table!

"To deny this possiblity, and to literally offer any Eastern European nation not currently in the NATO orbit as fair game to Putin / Russia, is beyond foolish! It is unbelievably irresponsible, and unbelievably dangerous!"

G. R. Florine

Thursday, September 25, 2008

The Case against a bailout

Steve Chapman authors a good editorial which we mostly agree with regarding the proposed $700,000 billion bailout of reckless lenders and managers. While we applaud John McCain's efforts to return to Washington to help solve this so-called crisis we probably will not be as charitable with the cure.

Among things Chapman says:

"Bernanke warns of a recession. But economic downturns are not to be avoided at all costs. And one good thing about recessions is that they end, usually in a matter of months. An intervention of this nature, by contrast, would have malignant consequences for decades to come (Our highlights).

A group of 122 economists, including at least two Nobel laureates, signed a letter this week summarizing the danger: "If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted."

Not to mention the risk of giving the executive branch powers that a Russian czar would envy. If this bailout goes through, the term "limited government" will have to be permanently retired (again, our highlights)."

As we said before, there is a fine line between capitalism and socialism and it seems we've created it by allowing businesses to become too big to fail. While we eschew over-regulation, regulation that prevents businesses from becoming to big to fail might just be desirable. Any business that is that big is not only a threat to our economy, but potentially to our social and national status....
Just in case the Steve Chapman editorial isn't enough to convince you, you might take a look at the one by Larry Elder, titled, "Is Capitalism on the Ropes" at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/is_capitalism_on_the_ropes.html

Check us out

We update our "Today's Videos" every day with new ads run by both candidates, with ads run by interest groups and with new interviews. All you have to do is scroll down on the right side of the page to "Today's Videos" and click the one you want to see. We try to be fair and balanced in our postings but then we are conservative by nature.

Also, we have links further down the page to candidates and we have a calendar of local GOP related events occurring in the Omaha area. If one of you Democrat readers would like to send us your updates we'd be happy to post.

And don't forget to check out our other features as you scroll down the page.

Lastly, if you want to comment on an article, just click on comments. You can leave your comments completely anonymously or leave your name or partial name. Readers will never see your e-mail address or any information you don't specifically authorize.

We hope you enjoy our blog.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Accept the Challenge or Debate an Empty Chair - Pat McPherson

John McCain has suspended his campaign and asked to reschedule the first (Friday night) presidential debate. He has asked Barack Obama to join him, the congress and the president in resolving the financial crisis facing our country.

From my standpoint, this was not only appropriate but a stroke of genius by McCain who now puts the economic well-being of the country before his election.

It will be interesting to see how Barack Obama responds. Does he accept John McCain's invitation and in so doing, give McCain credence for the decision, or does he, abetted by Jim Leher and debate commission debate an empty chair while Rome is burning?

Perhaps McCain has turned lemons into lemonade.

The Consequences of Intervention

We like an editorial by George Will today which warns of the consequences of government intervention in the financial crisis. You might like to check out at:


On the same topic there is another good article from the Wall Street Journal by Alvaro Vargas Llosa which serves additional food for thought before we taxpayers donate $700,000 billion.

See it at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/wall_street_socialism.html

What Would the media say if McCain said it?

You've probably seen the quote or heard about Joe Biden's comments, but here is what he said:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television...

You have also been told that Roosevelt wasn't the president and 1929 and that there were no tv networks (let alone consumer owned televisions) to get on.....

We wonder what kind of a field day the liberal media would be having if poor ol' John McCain or poor stupid Sarah Palin had uttered such a historically incorrect gaffe?

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

The Chuck Hagel Aqua/Stinker Sewer Separation Project.

Nebraskans and Omahans are jealous. Bob Kerrey spent 12 years in the Senate, tried to run for president and after retirement gets a bridge named after him. Given the fact that our city fathers recently named the $21.5 million pedestrian/pork footbridge to nowhere (sorry Council Bluffs) the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge, it seems equally important that we have an appropriate way to remember our soon to be retired U.S. Senator, Chuck Hagel.

After some reflexion about recent events in Omaha and nationally we at the Objective Conservative think it's time to name Omaha's future Storm water/Sewage Improvement Project that, courtesy of the E.P.A., will cost Omaha taxpayers $1.6 billion over the next 20 years.

With that said and given our soon-to-be retired U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel's popularity here at home, we herewith declare the $1.6 billion debacle the CHUCK HAGEL AQUA/STINKER SEWER SEPARATION PROJECT. Now, Senator Chuck can have something appropriate named after him (and it's not even an earmark!!). As we reflect upon the project over the coming years we will be left with an appropriate taste in our mouths......

Do as I say Not as I do -- Hollyweird Angst with Obama?

From our friends at the Left Coast Report we receive the following shocking news:

Lindsay Lohan’s Dad Bawls Out Obama

"Lindsay Lohan has stepped forward and volunteered to campaign for Barack Obama. But the Obama campaign rejected her offer, which made Lindsay’s dad hopping mad.

"Now Michael Lohan is letting the world know exactly what he thinks about the Democratic nominee.

"It seems that Lindsay had offered to host some campaign events in order to attract younger voters.

"The actress “'is not exactly the kind of high-profile star who would be a positive for us,” a high-ranking source inside the Obama campaign told the Chicago Sun Times.

"Friends of Lohan said that she was hurt by the Obama rebuff.

"Her father blasted the Illinois senator: “For Barack Obama to condemn my daughter for past indiscretions when he admitted to the exact same himself is indicative of what kind of president he would be,” Mr. Lohan told Fox News. “His visions of a positive future for this country should be representative of a positive future for people as well. It is looking beyond the difficult times and letting go of the past.”

"Referring to the tumultuous life that Obama lived as a youth, Mr. Lohan admonished the Democratic nominee some more, pointing out the hypocrisy of moving beyond his own past while rejecting Lindsay because of hers.

“Obviously, Obama can do this for himself and not others, when in fact a good president should have hope for all,” he said. "

You draw your own conclusions.....

Monday, September 22, 2008

We Know Where They Are Coming From

If you want a good reason for conservatives to vote for John McCain (beyond Sarah Palin) take a look at the editorial page of today's New York Times. It expresses its bias in regard to the judges that IT believes that ought to be appointed by the next president--Barack Hussein Obama.

Check it out and think about the not only the meaning of a Barack Hussein Obama administration for the next four or eight years but maybe the next 20 or 30.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21sun1.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

A fine line between Capitalism and Socialism

From our friends at The Patriot Post today we read the following quote from Ken Blackwell:

“With freedom comes responsibility. Those who would have self-government must, by definition, govern themselves. Self-government only works when people act responsibly and fulfill their obligations. When people abuse these freedoms to enrich themselves at the expense of others, then the public will demand the government to step in. That is how government grows, and how freedom is diminished. The prospect of government intervention should be terrifying to corporate leaders. For too long many of them viewed it as a safety net. ...[A]fter the recent federal bailouts, some corporate officers are likely considering seeking the same bailout. As my grandmother was fond of saying, if you reward bad behavior all you are going to get is more bad behavior. Reckless and irresponsible individuals like those at the companies mentioned above give decent corporate managers a bad name. When financial meltdowns occur, the public’s outrage drives government to take over part of the private sector. When the government does so, it replaces irresponsible executives with unaccountable bureaucrats. That takes us out of the frying pan and into the fire.” —Ken Blackwell

While the country is certainly experiencing a financial meltdown, one cannot help but be struck by the fact that we are in effect socializing these purveyors of fiance that affect all of our lives. While we at the Objective Conservative believe 100% in capitalism, we wonder if there shouldn't be a point where regulation simply prevents any business from growing too big to fail?

Omaha World-Herald Continues to show bias on Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative

If you saw yesterday's Omaha World-Herald Midlands section and the article on the lower right hand front page, "Panelists call for affirmative action initiative's defeat" by Rick Ruggles, we must share a couple of thoughts.

First, the article is very unclear as to whether there was even a balanced panel, noting only that one audience member questioned whether affirmative action had been effective. If there was a balanced panel it is sure not clear who was there speaking on behalf of the initiative. The article does note that there were four pro-affirmative action speakers so we will presume there were none representing the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative. One wonders what coverage the World-Herald would have given to a meeting where four speakers representing the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative were the only speakers?

Worse yet, the writer, Rick Ruggles, commits the same act of bias that most of his fellow reporters and the editorial board at the Omaha World-Herald continue to commit, omitting the fact that Ward Connerly is not just a "California businessman" but also a black California businessman who was on the Board of Regents there for 10 years. When discussing an initiative dealing with affirmative action, wouldn't the fact that one of the major players on the side against it is a black former regent as well as a California businessman be relevant to those who might want all the facts? Or could it be that the reporters simply write to the opinion of the Omaha World-Herald editorial board? You decide.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Lee Terry at Risk

Lee Terry's chance of retention has been moved from 'safe' to 'favored' by CQ Politics.

This is what they have to say:

Nebraska’s 2nd

New Rating: Republican Favored. Previous Rating: Safe Republican .

"Republican Rep. Lee Terry is again facing Democratic lawyer Jim Esch, who took 45 percent of the vote two years ago in what was Terry’s weakest showing in five elections in a district that includes Omaha. Terry’s reduced margin in 2006 owed in part to the unfavorable political environment for Republicans, and he may yet beat Esch by a larger margin than in 2006.

"Esch’s inclusion on the DCCC’s Red to Blue list will give him access to more campaign cash, and he’ll probably will wind up spending more than the $420,000 that his 2006 campaign laid out. And the Terry campaign this week aired a television advertisement that attacks Esch on energy policy — something it probably would not have done if it thought Esch wasn’t at least a potential threat."

Lee Terry is in trouble. Given the turn-out-the-vote effort we're seeing with the Obama campaign in Douglas County, Lee may very likely lose the county. He will need to do extremely well in Sarpy County to ensure his return to the House come next January.

Protest at the United Nations -- Part 2

If you checked out our contribution, Protest at the United Nations, a couple of days ago, we noted that Sarah Palin would be there, although we still believe that the best form of U.N. protest is to send all of these criminals, spies and thieves and their headquarters to another continent.

Seems Hillary (I could have been President Clinton) backed out and now Sarah has be disinvited as apparently her presence might change the the focus of the event which is to protest Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's appearance there. Of course, Hillary Clinton's appearance wouldn't have been a distraction...... You figure.

You can read more at: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/18/palin_disinvited_from_anti-ira.html

Most Republican Leaders Stand up to Hagel

Congratulations to Mark Quandahl who on behalf of the Nebraska GOP recognized that Chuck Hagel's dispersions of Sarah Palin's qualifications don't hold water with Nebraska Republicans or for that matter most Nebraskans to begin with. We understand that Mark and the State Party office are getting loads of calls in support of their support for Palin. Needless to say, they aren't hearing any accolades for Senator Sunday Morning Talk Show.

Also, congrats to Governor Heineman and Congressmen Smith and Terry for their comments to the Omaha World-Herald (see today's addition).

Sadly, we note that soon to be senator-elect Johanns chose not to discuss Senator Hagel's unrepresentative comments. It certainly couldn't be because he is scared of Scott Kleeb whose political career in Nebraska is to soon meet its end. We hope Senator Johanns will be less candid about speaking up for the issues Nebraskans support when he goes back to Washington in January.

Conservatives are Scared -- Patrick McPherson

Sorry folks, I can't resist commenting on an article on page 7A of today's Omaha World-Herald, "Study finds conservatives more easily startled." A similar article also appears in today's Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091802265_pf.html

While I tend (obviously) to the conservative side, I'm really not sure whether I am more startled than others of scary things or threats as the articles imply. That's not the point of my discussion.

What seems absolutely ludicrous and what I am scared of is that someone gave good old non-controversial Professor Hibbing of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln money to do this study in the first place! This money didn't come from some silly earmark. No, it came from a grant from the National Science Foundation courtesy of your tax dollars!!!!! Doesn't the National Science Foundation have better things to do with your money? Apparently not.

One could ask a lot of questions about the validity of a study that includes only 46 individuals, but let me suggest that maybe we ought to be asking the following questions:
  1. Why are we spending your tax dollars on frivolous studies like this?
  2. Why when we have money to spend on such studies do we feel that agencies and organizations like the National Science Foundation are sacred and immune from tax cuts because of the weighty things they do for our society?

  3. Why in the world do we have a professor at our hallowed state university wasting his time and our tax dollars (both from the grant and certainly from the dollars we citizens pay him through our taxes) to pursue such inane knowledge?

  4. Finally, if earmarks are bad (and I believe them to be very bad), are grants provided by a bunch of foundation bureacrats, funded by your tax dollars, any better?

John Hibbing and Harvey Perlman (Chancellor of the University) can be proud of this wondrous study they have produced, but I say don't waste our federal and state tax dollars for what they apparently believe enhances the 'research' study status of the university (more research grants and dollars = more status)and the 'publishing' credits of Hibbing!

Guess I'll stay home on Halloween so I can avoid undo terror to my psyche......

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Chuck Hagel throws a bomb - Pat McPherson

Once again, and certainly not unexpectedly, lame duck, wishy-washy Senator Chuck Hagel has thrown his bomb at the Republican Party that has supported and given him (mistakenly) credibility for the last 12 years. Yes, the senator couldn't resist the opportunity to tell the world that Sarah Palin isn't ready for the job of Vice President or President.

Well, let's be honest, she probably isn't ready to be the President. No one ever is. But then, how is Barack Obama any more ready for the top job? The senator didn't mention that.

Perhaps after being criticized for not having gone to Iraq and then subsequently going with none other than Hagel this summer, that has made Barack Obama an expert in foreign affairs?

What the senator should be saying is that John McCain is infinitely more qualified to deal with a threatening world than is Barack Obama. We are electing a president, not just a Vice President. And, certainly, Sarah Palin has more administrative experience, more leadership experience as a mayor and governor than a guy who was a 'community organizer' and has spent 143 active days in the U.S. Senate with no record of introducing and passing any bill of substance.

As to the age factor and fear that poor dumb Sarah might become President, the senator ought to consider McCain's very alert, very active 95 (his daughter says 98) year-0ld mom. If DNA has anything to do with it, chances are John Sidney McCain will be singing at Hagel and Obama's funerals.

Obviously, Senator Hagel has a problem. He wanted to be President, but couldn't make up his mind as evidenced by one of the most embarrassing press conferences in history where he told the national news corps that he had decided to announce that he had not decided. Isn't that the kind of leadership we need?

Failing in his never-started bid for President, Senator Hagel decided that he might like to be Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State, so he decided that maybe he'd walk the line on whom he would support for the presidency. After all, if he sucked up to Barack Obama maybe he could get one of those jobs given his unique decision-making ability (or lack there of). Thus, his mentoring trip to Iraq with Barack Obama and now his bomb-throwing at Sarah Palin.

Let's face it. Any smart businessman wouldn't hire someone that wouldn't be loyal to him and how could a president-elect consider Chuck Hagel, whose lack of loyalty to Bush is evidence of that? Bad news for Hagel, even Barack Obama, should our nation have to endure his presidency, is going to be smart enough to not hire him! Obviously, Hagel already understands that President McCain won't and hasn't fallen for his capricious, self-serving behavior. Given his comments about Palin, there will and should be no doubt about that.

Hagel's failure to appear at the Nebraska Republican Party Convention and the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis certainly wasn't a punishment for those who once supported him. IT WAS A FAVOR! There certainly would have been no proclamations or resolutions at the state level supporting his 12 years of service and if any had been introduced, they would have failed miserably assuming there might have been a second.

What's even more amazing is that he has demonstrated an absolute self-serving attitude by the abandonment of principles that he told his supporters he believed in. Like pro-life. Like conservative judicial appointments. Like support for gun-owners. His lack of support for the Republican ticket simply demonstrates that he apparently only mouthed those principles (after receiving much tutoring and help those issues in the early, indecisive days of his first campaign) in order to get elected in the first place since Barack Obama represents the very antithesis of those beliefs.

Obviously, the senator chose to enhance his lame-duck status by not going to the convention and going to South America in order to boaster his 'international credentials' for Barack Obama at the cost to the tax payers who will benefit nothing in the last glorious few days of his time in the U.S. Senate.

As a 'learned' Republican on international issues Senator Hagel could have offered to assist John McCain and Sarah Palin rather than throw his self-serving bombs in hope of an appointment to the Barack Obama administration. He didn't. That was no surprise given the Chuck Hagel we have come to know.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

More on the American Carol

Okay, we like this film which will debut on October 3rd. Finally, a retort against the liberal Hollyweird establishment. Here's another review of what you can expect: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charles_dickens_hearts_david_z.html

Note from your editors

In the spirit of fairness we try to update our videos each day with the latest iterations from both presidential campaigns. While we may miss some, we hope you will check them out under Today's Videos. By the way some of the ones farther down the list are patriotic and funny.

Constitution Day

A reminder from our friends at the Patriot Post of a day that continues to effect the lives of each individual fortunate enough to have been born in this country......

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America... Done... the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.” —George Washington and the delegates "

Protest at the United Nations

Seems that there is going to be a protest outside the United Nations next week when good ol' Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinegad shows up to speak. Apparently, Sarah Palin will attend and Hillary Clinton, who planned on attending, has now decided not to (since Sarah will be there).

The entire scene seems silly to us. We're a country that promotes free speech so why would we protest his right to speak?

We've been harboring the United Nations and its crooks, spies and lawbreakers for more than 60 years. What we should be doing is protesting the presence of this body here in the United States.

From our perspective, we think that the United States would be much better to pay this organization to move its headquarters to Brussels, Paris or Baghdad. We could utilize that land in New York City and be rid of these ungrateful folks that use our country's resources to commit crimes, enrich themselves and oppose our efforts for a more democratic world.

Sarah Palin and the Fact Checker

While we at the Objective Conservative admittedly like Sarah Palin who has given new breath to John Sidney McCain's campaign, we also like to promote honesty in advertising (See: Do as I say not as I do). With that in mind, we suggest you check out the Fact Checker (courtesy of the always unbiased Washington Post) which seems to cast reasonable doubt on the Palin's energy credentials, at least as being touted by herself and John Sidney McCain.

See Fact Checker at: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/palin_on_energy.html

With that said, we still think that Barack Hussein Obama in no more qualified to be the President of the United States than Palin.

Do as I say Not as I do

In the spirit of truth in advertising we find it somewhat amusing that the Barack Hussein Obama campaign continues to utilize the ad that says that McCain has several working for him who are lobbyists when in fact they are former lobbyists and not currently registered to lobby. What makes the ad all the more hypocritical is the fact that Joe Biden has hired a currently registered lobbyist to assist in his senate re-election campaign.......

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-16-biden-lobbyist_N.htm

You can also see the ad mentioned above at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGXIuNthJ7Q

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Mr. Generous, Joe Biden

It's amazing that we find Joe Biden whose income has exceeded $300,000 over the last years can still find only an average amount of $369 annually to give from his budget for charitable purposes. No doubt his contributors have paid for lots of dinners for the same purpose from his campaign funds, but we still think it's sad.

In fact, if you recall, Al Gore, a piker himself, still gave about $3,500 to charities in the year prior to his defeat to George Bush in 2000 and we thought that was dismal.

On the other hand we suspect that Biden's version of generosity is that even in the case of charities it is better for your government rather than you to make the decision to part with YOUR money.

Hollyweird on Palin

The utter brilliance and contempt of Hollywierd for Republicans never fails to astound us so we share with you the latest from our friends at the Left Coast Report:

Hollywood Shows Palin the Hate
"The hate for Sarah Palin continues to flow from celebrities’ mouths.

Lindsay Lohan must have been feeling the heat for previously having the most measured Hollywood response to the GOP vice presidential nomination. “I really cannot bite my tongue anymore when it comes to Sarah Palin,” she blogged. “Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?”

Pop singer Pink told PopEater.com, “This woman hates women…She's not of this time. The woman terrifies me.”
In her e.e. cummings style, Rosie O’Donnell blogged on, comparing Palin to her former “View” co-host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck. “sarah p - elisabeth h / identical cousins,” O’Donnell wrote. “women who hunt in high heels / gives one pause.”
Pamela Anderson said, “I can't stand her.” And despite the fact that Anderson asked to be quoted, the profanity she uttered is best not repeated.

While at the Toronto Film Festival, Matt Damon launched into a double diss, hitting Disney and Palin with the following: “It's like a really bad Disney movie, ‘The Hockey Mom.’” He added that it was “a really terrifying possibility.” Damon apparently fell for a phony blog posting that quoted the Alaska governor as supposedly saying, “Dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago.” He worried aloud that he needed to “know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago, that's an important… I wanna know that, I really do.”

Gina Gershon dressed up as Palin for a video, which was posted on the Web.
“Like so many of you, I went to five colleges,” the actress said while in Palin character. “Barach Obama only went to one.”

And what college did Gershon graduate from? Oh, that’s right, she didn’t. "

Will Maybe not quite. You might want to check out this article on the Hollyweird establishment by Andrew Breitbart, titled Bad Will Hunting at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/bad_will_hunting.html

Monday, September 15, 2008

A Billion here, a million there

From our friends at Congressional Quarterly, we find out that the auto industry wants $25 billion form our treasury to figure out how to make more fuel-efficient autos (Maybe they ought to just buy Hyundai) and that a Texas Congressman, (D) wants to fund a "Silver Alert" (like the Amber Alert) funded by tax payer dollars to find the old folks when they wander at a cost of only a few million a year.

Seems that a billion here a million there sometimes adds up to real money....Oh, excuse us Joe Biden, we believe we just paraphrased Congressman Everett Dirksen.

For more on either topic, see: http://by110w.bay110.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&ReadMessageId=7e62ef64-6858-4eb3-97a5-f8d59fe82547&n=2035489299

An American Carol

Folks who attended the Republican National Convention got a chance to see the premier version of this film which will be in local theaters on Oct. 3rd. It will be a great opportunity to poke fun at the liberals for a change.

Here is what News Max had to say in part:

LOS ANGELES -- "An American Carol" is coming to a theater near you, whether you like it or not.
The zany comedy, which promises to offend Hollywood's liberal sensibilities, will open on 2,000 screens across the United States on Oct. 3, just one month before the presidential election.
It is based loosely on "A Christmas Carol," except that, instead of Ebenezer Scrooge's learning an appreciation for Christmas, a Michael Moore-type filmmaker learns to respect the U.S.A. through visits from the ghosts of George Washington, George Patton and President Kennedy.
The cast includes such right-leaning actors as Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight. The film was directed, co-written and produced by David Zucker, the filmmaker best known for a couple of "Scary Movie" sequels, as well as "The Naked Gun."

For more, read, http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/comedy_skewers_liberals/2008/09/15/130983.html?s=al&promo_code=6A30-1


Mock Hearing On Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative

Yesterday, Sunday September 14, there was a mock hearing on the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative held at Creighton University. The apparent purpose of the hearing was to allow Nebraska Public Television the opportunity to record same for public viewing to help the citizens of Nebraska make up their minds on which way to vote on the issue.

We think the answer to which way to vote is simply YES.

With that said we were impressed with the proponents who testified, Ward Connerly, Pete Ricketts and Marc Schniederjans, a professor at UNL.

We were far less impressed by the opponents, led by none other than Dave Kramer, former Nebraska Republican Chairman and former candidate for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination. It appears to us and to virtually every Republican that we have talked to that Kramer has sold his future GOP candidate aspirations and his soul on this cause for whatever he is getting or will get from his liberal supporters on this issue.

You might want to check out the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure filings to see who all the liberals and liberal organizations are that are opposing what Kramer says is a "solution in search of a problem." You can do so by clicking: http://nadc.nol.org/ccdb/search.cgi?page=formb1&IDNO=08BQC00186&OFFREC=08/04/2008

Interestingly, the only opponent of the initiative that Kramer could call was State Senator Danielle Nantkes, a liberal Democrat representing the 46th State Unicameral District which just happens to include the university. Sadly, we found it disturbing that the attorney for the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative failed to question Nantkes in regard to her paid services for the opposition. Yes, Nantkes, your state senator, is being paid to oppose the bill that she testified against yesterday.

A couple of thoughts:
  1. If the opposition's supporters don't send chills up your back, you are a Democrat elitist member of academia.

  2. If this initiative really accomplishes nothing as Kramer and associates claim, why are they so adamantly opposed to it?

  3. David Kramer has severely diminished his status as a current or future Republican leader in the state of Nebraska.

  4. Vote for the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative on November 4th!

For more on the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, see: http://www.nebraskacri.org/

For more on Nebraskans United, see: http://www.nebraskansunited.org/

No Child Helped

It's no secret that we don't care a bit for President Bush's massive intrusion into education, No Child Left Behind. Even one of his chief allies and current Barack Hussein Obama supporter, Ted (it really did take me 12 hours to figure out how to avoid a manslaughter charge) Kennedy wants to see it revised.

Here's an interesting quote from our friends at the Heritage Foundation:

"NCLB has succeeded in one area, though: expanding federal power. Federal spending on K-12 education has increased by 41 percent since 2001. The Department of Education has been granted new powers to micromanage how states and localities run their schools. The cost of bureaucratic compliance has increased - resulting in more education dollars spent on administration than in the classroom. In all, NCLB increased the regulatory burden on state and local governments by 6.7 million hours annually - approximately $140 million."

You can read their solution to the problem or its possible re-authorization at: http://by110w.bay110.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&ReadMessageId=a192afe9-49a1-41a2-a1cb-b72a6cf3d523&n=951939930

For our part, we hope that John Sidney McCain, should he be elected, will have a lot more to say about devolving the federal government from education and ending this bureaucratic intrusion into the education of our children. By the way, where does the Constitution of this great land provide for federal involvement in the process to begin with?

The Bush Doctrine

Charles Krauthammer has a good editorial regarding Charlie Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin particularly as regards the Bush Doctrine.

Check it out at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Imagine if the Media Were Fair -- Doug Patton

September 15, 2008

As I watched ABC’s Charlie Gibson play gotcha with Gov. Sarah Palin by asking her about “the Bush Doctrine” as though it were something we all learned in grade school, like the Monroe Doctrine, I found myself wondering what interviews with Barack Obama and Joe Biden might look like if the mainstream media were really as fair and unbiased as they like to pretend they are. Imagine some of the questions Obama and Biden might be asked if Charles Gibson or anyone at ABC (Adoring Barack Corporation) had an ounce of objectivity.

To Obama: On the campaign trail, you made the following statement: “I’ve been to 57 states, and I have one more to go.” Senator, do you know how many states there are in the United States?

To Obama: During a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, you made reference to “my Muslim faith.” After Stephanopoulos corrected you, you said, “My Christian faith.” Senator, why are you ashamed to admit you are a Muslim?

To Biden: During a recent campaign event in Missouri, you asked Congressman Chuck Graham, who is wheelchair-bound, to “Stand up, Chuck!” Were you making a tasteless joke or are you simply obtuse?

To Obama: Your brother George lives on less than a dollar a month in a hut in Kenya while you live a millionaire’s lifestyle in Washington and in Chicago. Do you know if he had anything to eat today? Why was he quoted as saying that he is ashamed to be related to you?

To Obama: In light of Gov. Palin’s choice to keep her newborn baby, Trig, who has Down syndrome, would you like to retract your insensitive comment that you wouldn’t want one of your daughters “punished with a baby”? And by the way, as a father, which one of your daughters do you consider to have been a punishment? And if children are a punishment, who is it coming from? Is God punishing you and your wife by giving you two children?

To Biden: In your first speech after Barack Obama chose you as his running mate, you referred to him as “Barack America.” Do you think of Sen. Obama as a super hero? Do you have a man crush on him?

To Obama: During your introduction of Joe Biden after naming him as your running mate, you referred to him as “the next president.” Do you believe this ticket is upside down?

To Obama: You sat in the pews at Trinity United Church of Christ for twenty years. Do you really expect voters to believe that you never heard any of the radical rants of Jeremiah Wright during all that time?

To Biden: On the campaign trail recently, you stated, “Hillary Clinton is as qualified — or more qualified — to be president than I am. And frankly, she might have been a better choice.” Senator, are you planning on stepping down from the ticket?

To Obama: What is your relationship with convicted felon Tony Rezko? Was there illegal activity involved in what many are calling your questionable land deal with Rezko?

To Obama: You are “friendly” with former Weather Underground leader William Ayres. What is the nature of your relationship, and given Ayres previous attempts at murderous collusion, what could you possibly have in common with this man who harbors such hatred for America? Do you consider your dealings with this self-admitted domestic terrorist as experience in the War on Terror, much like community organizing is equivalent to military service?

And finally, to Obama: Senator, do you really think you have the experience to be president of the United States?

The Democratic ticket is a walking gaffe machine with a record so liberal there is no other way to describe their agenda than to call is what it is: socialism. These are just a few of the many questions that would be asked of Barack Obama and Joe Biden if the media were fair. But they are not fair, and the fact that John McCain and Sarah Palin are now pulling into the lead in the polls is proof of the weakness of the Democrats’ ticket.

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

The Life Issue

We don't always agree with him, but in this case we do. Patrick Buchanan makes the case for those who believe in the sanctity of life on why the upcoming election is so important. It's worth a read at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/last_chance_for_life.html

And while we are on the topic, we would only note that had Barack Hussein Obama's mother taken the way out that he wants to preserve for his daughters should they make the mistake of becoming pregnant at an early age, Barack Hussein Obama wouldn't be running for president today!

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Where is Hagel? -- Day 4

Well, yes, we know that Senator Hagel is apparently still hiding out in South America on some Codel (that's short for Congressional delegation) or in this case just plain wasting tax payers money since Chuck is just a lame duck at best--unless, of course, as we would assert there simply because it will enhance his resume for President Barack Hussein Obama. Too bad though for Chuck that we don't believe that even a President Obama would hire someone whose loyalty can't be counted on.

Anyway, we know Chuck isn't going to show up for Senator McCain's speech tonight. No doubt, his wife won't be giving Senator McCain money for his campaign as she has for Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

Senator Chuckie owes Nebraska Republicans an apology for his use of their party to get ahead. He owes the taxpayers of the nation an apology and reimbursement for the dollars he has wasted by this trip to South America that will apparently only benefit himself.

Shame on you Chuck!

Oh, we think that you do deserve something so we hereby declare you are September nominee to the Objective Conservative Hall of Shame.

Where is Chuck? Day 3

Day three of the Republican National Convention has arrived and Nebraska U.S. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is still A.W.O.L. (absent without leave for those of you who never had the privilege of serving in the military). If the good senator were ever going to show up it would be tonight so that he could preempt Nebraska Republican Chairman who will be casting the votes for the Nebraska delegation once Senator John Sydney McCain has been nominated. But then, if Senator Hagel did show up there might be a vote on whether to even allow him on the floor.

Yes, we know, Senator Hagel has been found burnishing his credentials somewhere in South America. None the less, the Senator is conspicuously absent although frankly we don't believe any of the delegates really care.

The Republican National Convention -- September 2 -- Patrick McPherson

The day began with another sponsored breakfast at 7:30 a.m. with Novartis sponsoring the breakfast in honor of Governor Heineman who, with wife Sally Ganem, were present. After a brief introduction, Pete Ricketts introduced other dignitaries, thanked the state party support staff and introduced the folks from Novartis who then introduced Governor Heineman, providing accolades for his efforts on business incentives.

Governor Heineman thanked the folks fro Novaritis and briefly described efforts he had made to help with the hurricane crisis in the South, where he noted he had sent 4 National Guard helicopters and 20 National Guard members to assist. Among other things he discussed was the excitement that Bo Pelini had brought back to Nebraska football and the great success of N.U.’s girls volleyball team. The Governor and his wife also rewarded delegates and alternates with a beautiful laser-carved wooden box, displaying the Nebraska State Capitol and containing two decks of equally attractive playing cards.

Chairman Quandahl announced that the buses for the Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C. and Nebraska Credit Union League event would be leaving for an afternoon of food and relaxation along Lake Minnetonka at the Bayview Event Center at 1:30.

At 1:15, the delegation boarded a bus to the Lake Minnetonka Bay View Event Center for the event sponsored by Brumbaugh & Quandahl and the Nebraska Credit Union League. After a ride of about half an hour the buses arrived at the location where a tent had been set up outside of the main meeting area. Because of temperatures in the sixties, the tent was welcome and guests were greeted with staff offering hors'dourves. In an adjacent reception room delegates and friends were offered libations and seating as waitresses offered comments and thanks additional hors'dourves.

National Committee Man Pete Ricketts offered comments for those responsible for the reception and the delegation heard brief remarks from the sponsors. After a period of time a full buffet was set up which included fried chicken, carved turkey, Minnesota fruits and fix-your-own fish tacos. Overall delegate response to the event was high praise and thanks.

With the need to get to the Xcel Center for the evening session, the buses started boarding about 4:15 for the trip there which took about 30 minutes. Being dropped off by chartered buses outside the center resulted in some early frustration as it appeared delegates, alternates and guests would have to wait in a line about a block line and eight to ten folks wide, but delegations returned to the day’s prior entry point where virtually no one was waiting and after a few minutes that gate was opened for them. All proceeded into the center after facing the routine Secret Service inspections and wanding.

While most of the delegation attended the Brumbaugh and Quandahl function some attended a salute to Veterans near the Xcel center. At that event, the group received the standard welcome menu of hors'dourves and libations. Conservative actor (a rarity for sure) and star of An American Carol John Voight welcomed the guests and spoke of his initial opposition to the Iraq war and his current support of the effort.

The evening session consisted of addresses from Laura Bush who introduced President Bush who spoke by satellite from Washington, D.C., giving a very strong endorsement to the McCain/Palin ticket. The highlights of the evening were the powerful speeches of Bush followed by those of Fred Thompson and Senator Lieberman. Thompson was tremendously received and provided a powerful endorsement of the ticket leaving one to wonder why he was never able to generate the fire-in-the-belly to run his own campaign for the presidential nomination. Although Senator Lieberman certainly didn’t command the respect of the delegates or raise the level of excitement in the center his speech closed the evening with what was obviously a well-aimed and articulated speech to the television audience of independents and Democrats who may have been watching. Overall, the evening represented the beginning of an initial level of excitement throughout the convention center and all the delegates and alternates.

With the convention recessing for the night, the Nebraska delegation caught their buses back to the Normandy where some gathered in the Landmark Grill bar while others assembled in the lobby enjoying freshly baked chocolate chip cookies and planning for the next event, a reception by AT & T at the Karma bar a mile or so away. Some walked to the event while others chose to take a short taxi ride there.

Upon arrival at Karma the contingent was treated to the standard libations and hors'dourves and an outstanding band. Although the event was for Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota delegates, alternates and guests, it seemed that the Nebraska delegation represented the majority of the folks there. The delegation also had a great time dancing to the band’s music with Ralph Knobel being one of the dancing superstars and Marie Zupan feeling the groove of the Electric Slide. The event which began around 11:00 concluded at 1:30 a.m. The group returned to the hotel by taxi with the knowledge that they would have a little extra time to sleep in as the first event for the next morning wasn’t scheduled until 10:00 a.m.

Overall, the second day of the convention represented an opportunity to get back into the swing of things, given the disruption of the first day activities due to onslaught of Hurricane Gustov on the gulf coast. There was a real sense of momentum and excitement about the next day and the nominations of McCain and Palin as well as Palin’s speech.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Where is Chuck? Day 2

Day two of the Republican National Convention and still no sign of Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. One might think the soon to be retired senator would want to attend his last national convention, but it appears he is out of the country--in South America. No doubt he is burnishing his credentials in preparation for another one of his fantasies, becoming President Barack Hussein Obama's Secretary of State. Too bad, that fantasy will never come true, but then he can dream.

Still, we can hope that Chuck shows up to check in with the Nebraska delegation. It would be interesting to see his reception.

Monday, September 1, 2008

The Republican National Convention -- September 1 -- Patrick McPherson

Monday morning started out with an 8:00 a.m. breakfast sponsored by Meridian Central Public Affairs and Sam Fischer, a former finance chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party. The breakfast buffet included comments from State Party Chairman Mark Quandahl, National Committeeman Pete Ricketts and National Committeewoman De Carlson. Pete Ricketts asked for a show of hands of those who were attending their first convention and virtually half of the guests responded affirmatively. Mark announced that due to Hurricane Gustav, the convention will be shortened to about two hours and would be called to order about 3:00 p.m. Sam Fischer gave a brief entreaty for all in the room to join or upgrade their Booster Club memberships and briefly discussed his business. Following breakfast delegates were advised to be in the lobby to catch their bus to an early lunch at 10:15. Delegates and alternates also received their delegate badges.

The delegation gathered at 10:15 and waited for the buses to arrive for their trip to the View Restaurant and Bar in Minneapolis. Pat McPherson being one of the first to enter the delegate bus quickly fell into the driver’s seat giving many boarding delegate a surprise and a good dose of anxiety although once the bus was filled he reluctantly gave up his seat to the driver. After a trip of about 20 minutes the bus arrived at its destination.

Upon arrival at the View the delegates were warmly welcomed and seated for what would be one of many more meals to come. The menu consisted of an appetizer of crab cakes, a melon salad and a choice between salmon and steak, followed by cheese cake with a choice of soft drinks. The meal was excellently prepared and all enjoyed.

Paul Plofchan, Assistant Director for Government Relations and Public Affairs addressed the delegates on behalf of his employer and the luncheon sponsor, Pfizer.

Having eaten two meals in close proximity, the delegation left the View by chartered bus for what was to be a shortened first convention session, the day and session adjusted due to the convention’s rewrite of its agenda because of Hurricane Gustav. The only sign of protests or demonstrations was one on an exit ramp as the buses approached the convention center. About five individuals had situated themselves in a seating position across the upper portion of the ramp with authorities in the process of dealing with them. The delegates were dropped about three blocks from the St. Paul Convention Center and quickly walked through secured areas to the entrance where they walked through the Secret Service security checkpoint. One delegate, the father of a Third District Nebraska Congressman, discovered prior to his entrance that he had a forbidden item, a pocket knife, in his pocket and quickly ditched it into a flower planter sparing himself and his son any unnecessary embarrassment. There was little sign of demonstrations.

Once in the convention center, delegates proceeded downstairs to the main floor while alternates and guests were seated in the tiers overlooking the floor. Despite Nebraska’s 65% support of Bush in prior elections and of Republican presidential candidates before that time, delegates received a simply crappy seating location far to the right of the podium while alternates had a much better view of the podium from their lofty location. In addition to being barely able to see the podium from their delegate location, the seating was extremely crowded and uncomfortable. None the less, prior to the 2:45 opening of the most delegates and alternates found their way to their assigned seating areas.

The convention opened with the perfunctory Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem and an invocation. Following the opening, a temporary chairman was appointed and a recess called so four committees, including the credential committees could quickly meet. Unfortunately, the hiatus lasted about one hour giving delegates plenty of time to visit among themselves as well as with members of other delegations.

When the convention was called back into order, at about 4:30 the perfunctory process continued with the major event being the introduction of Laura Bush with her subsequent introduction of Cindy McCain. Politics was at a complete minimum as the primary purpose of the speeches was to provide delegates with text message and e-mail addresses to contribute to disaster relief funds for the ongoing hurricane.

With the conclusion of comment by Cindy McCain and Laura Bush, a benediction followed with adjournment. The mass exodus from the convention resulted in mass confusion for many who had yet to discover the shuttle bus procedure for return to their hotels. In Nebraska’s case, the delegation members were required to walk several blocks around the complex to find their buses and then wait in line ad buses to their hotel and several others boarded. Some folks, having not figured out the shuttle bus system, ended up taking a taxi back to the hotel at a cost of $45.

By 6:15 the majority of the delegation, including the left behind spouses and friends had returned to the Normandy Best Western. Somewhat later, Nancy McCabe, Francina Berney and members of the party staff put out libations and snacks in the Nebraska Republican Party suite next to the swimming pool. Many of the delegates took advantage of the hospitality and spent time visiting with other members of the delegation.

One contingent of the delegation went to the 8th Street Grill for food, drinks and later for cigars enjoyed outside while solving the problems of the world and the nation.

Where is Chuck Hagel? --- Day 1

We understand that Nebraska's finest Republican U.S. Senator is absent from the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. One would think that Nebraska's senior and soon to be retired senator might want to attend the national convention of his party, but apparently his goal is to be Barack Hussein Obama's Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense so he wouldn't want to tarnish his image by appearing there. None the less, we shall maintain a daily countdown in hopes that Senator Hagel's partisan stripes materialize in St. Paul

McCain Names a Woman of Action -- Doug Patton

August 31, 2008

Here is the statement John McCain should put out right now and stick to for the rest of this campaign: “I believe Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are both qualified to be vice president. The Democrats just have their ticket upside down.”

The choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be the Republican vice presidential nominee is energizing the GOP base like nothing John McCain has ever done. Indeed, just as Barack Obama had to prop up his weak credentials by picking someone with experience, John McCain had to bolster his long resume, filled with heroism, military skill and governmental knowledge with a fresh, solid, proven conservative who has walked the walk and not just talked the talk.

Sarah Palin is the real deal. From her days as a tenacious high school basketball player and beauty queen to her meteoric rise through the ranks of Alaska politics, she didn’t get the nickname ‘Sarah Barracuda’ for nothing. She is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and a compassionate 44-year-old mother of five, including a Down’s syndrome child born in April of this year.

Unlike Barack Obama, who thought so highly of himself that he wrote two autobiographies before he accomplished anything, Mrs. Palin has raised a family, run a business, managed a city and governed a state. She took on corrupt members of her own party, toppled a sitting Republican governor and said ‘no’ to Alaska’s infamous bridge to nowhere. She is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Second Amendment and pro-free enterprise. She is the governor of America’s most natural resource-rich state and is an advocate of oil drilling in ANWR. (Perhaps she can talk some sense into McCain on that issue.)

Oh, and she has an 80 percent approval rating among Alaskans.

It will be interesting to see how many disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters will vote Republican in November because of Palin’s name on the ballot. Will they abandon the worn out big government programs of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who offer the same tired ideas proposed by George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry before them? Will all those 85-year-old women who kept saying, “I just wanted to live long enough to see a woman elected,” now take advantage of their opportunity? If gender is their criteria, this is their chance.

There are so many reasons liberals are going to hate running against this ticket. First, there is the fact that the big liberal lie will soon be proven false: namely that conservatives won’t vote for a woman. I have contended for some time that conservatives of all stripes — social, fiscal, national security — would support a woman or a minority without hesitation if that person had the right worldview. The exciting thing for most of us is that we now have an opportunity to elect a truly conservative female to help lead our country.

Also, unlike Hillary Clinton, who has gotten where she is on the back of a philandering husband, Palin has done it on her own. In short, Sarah Palin is the ultimate feminist, and the Left can’t stand the fact that she not only is not one of them, she is their antithesis: a conservative wife and mother who loves God, shoots guns, eats Moose burgers, treasures traditional marriage and values innocent human life. And she’s attractive and articulate to boot! She’s their worst nightmare!

Alaska is often described as the last frontier, the last vestige of wild, rugged America. This is not simple nostalgia pining for a bygone ere. Alaska is a crucible (albeit a frozen one), and you don't get elected dogcatcher there unless you are up to the job. Barack Obama's refined enunciations are an unacceptable substitute for action. And that is precisely what John McCain has found in Sarah Palin — a woman of action.


© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton


Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.