McCain Tightening Up The Race and Positioning His Path to Victory

by Justin La Grange

I will write an endorsement note soon; not that it will be any surprise, but I just wanted to articulate why I'm endorsing who I am endorsing so I'm not further accused of being any of the following:
a. racist
b. stupid
c. devoid of hope
d. all of the above

At this point, October 22, Obama leads by slight margins in a lot of key states that McCain needs to pick up, according to RCP/Yahoo Political Dashboard (where you can find all this data). These are Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina. And when I say slight margins, I really mean slight margins like 1-3% in all of these, within the margin of error. With two weeks to go, McCain gaining momentum, and growing worries of the Bradley Effect and polling error taking place in mid to high single digits on final poll outcomes, it is now looking likely that those states could easily and likely go to John McCain. When you have margins like this, I anticipate that these states, driven by the propensity of the undecideds to swing to the non-controversial candidate, will go to the "safe" John McCain.

Current Polling In FL, NC, MO, and OH:
Florida (27EV): Obama 48%/McCain 46.5%
North Carolina (15EV): Obama 49.2%/McCain 47.2%
Missouri (11EV): Obama 48%/McCain 45.3%
Ohio (20EV): Obama 48.3%/McCain 45.8%

Okay, that assumption tallies to 247 electoral votes for McCain and 291 votes for Obama. McCain still needs 22-23 electoral votes from somewhere. Below are some of the options.



Nevada (5 Electoral Votes)

Obama is leading McCain 49.3% to 46% in Nevada, which factoring in statistical error could make Nevada even. I don't think McCain is trending as well in the west as he is in the East Coast states I've listed above which is why I haven't given it to him as I have FL, NC, OH, and MO. However, when the polls start tightening up near the end of the race and given the factors I've listed for tightening above, I think McCain is in a very comfortable position to possibly win Nevada.

Pennsylvania (21 Electoral votes)

McCain is still campaigning very hard in Pennsylvania despite high single digit to low double digit trailing in the polls. You would think that this seems very odd as McCain has near abandoned states like Michigan and Iowa where he trails by a similar margin. Interestingly enough, Pennsylvania is a major anomaly, with pollsters and campaigns on both sides admitting that the margin in their internal polling is significantly tighter than national polling. In addition, Pennsylvania has a history of dramatic poll shifts in the final days, and the final results tend to favor Republican candidates heavily, albeit the polls had the Democrats at twenty point leads in those races (for example; so they ended up winning by narrow margins). Obama was absolutely trounced in Pennsylvania primaries by Hillary Clinton, likely by more socially conservative Democrats who saw right through his covering up of those Chicago and San Francisco liberal values. In that trouncing, Clinton saw a larger margin of victory than the polls had been predicting.

Pennsylvania is a state that stretches into the midwest and has a very large contingency of Republicans in Western Pennsylvania as well as socially moderate/generally moderate suburban voters all over Pennsylvania - exactly the kind of voter that caters to McCain (less so than President Bush, who lost the state by a very narrow margin). Rep. John Murtha also called Western Pennsylvania "very racist", which can only work the "Bradley Effect" in McCain's favor.

New Hampshire (4 Electoral Votes)

New Hampshire is a very libertarian state, and McCain had a large fan base there dating back from 2000 in which he called religious leaders backing George W. Bush "agents of intolerance". Despite a roughly 9% trail in the polls (52-BO/43-JMC), this is a state that was tied for McCain just a few weeks ago and could easily tie again with national shifts trending towards McCain. Keep in mind that New Hampshire is not a bonafide East Coast liberal state, much like Pennsylvania. Incidentally, McCain has been campaigning quite amply in New Hampshire as of late.

Virginia (13 Electoral Votes)

McCain is trailing by 7 points (51.5-BO/44.5-JMC). Again, national swings and polling error can put this state further into play. Virginia is also a traditionally Republican state, although it does have lots of blacks coming in full force for Obama as well as a lot of folks moving from DC into Northern Virginia. However, the 2004 election underrepresented Bush's actual support by a decent margin in the polls, meaning that it's possible such a thing could happen here.

Colorado (9 Electoral Votes)

Obama is currently leading McCain 50.4% to 45% in this traditionally Republican state. Again, national swings and polling error can put Colorado into play come November 4th. Somehow, I'm not terribly bullish on Colorado, but if McCain can continue to tighten it up a little, it may be possible to pull off a win.

Getting to 270

Making the assumption that McCain pulls off the aforementioned 247 EV's in OH, FL, MO, and NC, let's assemble some likely scenarios to 270.
247 + 21 PA + 1 in Maine = 269 tie
247 + 21 PA + 4 NH = 272 win
247 + 21 PA + 5 NV = 273 win
247 + 21 PA + 9 CO = 277 win
247 + 13 VA + 9 CO = 269 tie
247 + 13 VA + 21PA = 281 win
247 + 13 VA + 5 NV + 9 CO = 274 win
247 + 13 VA + 5 NV + 4 NH = 269 tie

As you can see, the road to the White House for John McCain lies in winning either Pennsylvania or Virginia, and then peeling off a small bit of something else to tip it over.

Reasons for Polling Error:

Voters who are more enthusiastic about their candidate tend to respond to pollsters. More often than not, that candidate would be Barack Obama, perhaps making him overrepresented in the sample.

The Bradley Effect: People don't want to tell the pollster they're voting McCain or they put themselves in the undecided category for fear of seeming racist. This intimidation effect seems plausible, as I don't feel terribly comfortable going around Berkeley toting my McCain/Palin pin (but I do), but will be very comfortable toting McCain/Palin in the ballot box.

Safe Candidate Syndrome: People are not afraid to go with the more controversial and less safe choice (if their a moderate swing voter) when chatting with a pollster or doing some online survey. However, there's a certain finality and seriousness of the ballot box that makes people re-examine their concerns and fears and vote with the "safe" candidate

References:

WSJ: Are the polls accurate?:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463210033356561.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

News Outlets Sweat Over Exit Poll Accuracy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081021/pl_politico/14778

BBC: Will Closet Racism Derail Obama:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7675551.stm

Is UC Berkeley Subverting State Law? It Sure Looks Like It

UC Berkeley has made no secret of its desire to eliminate Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996 to eliminate discrimination against certain races in the California public university admissions process. Specifically, Prop 209 made it illegal to continue the practice of giving applications with "minority" designations preference and a boost up in the admissions process despite having inferior "numerical" (GPA and SAT) qualifications. You could tell the process of discrimination was rampant before Prop 209 because minority enrollment plunged and their numerical data points surged upward, as evidenced by the data in the links I have provided.

The question in front of us now is whether UC Berkeley has disobeyed state law as mandated by the people of California by subverting the non-racial application review process in its admissions office. The evidence is quite overwhelming to support this.

Here's a pretty non-shocking yet explosive allegation made by an admissions committee member at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), who claims in his report that UCLA has covered up the fact that it takes race into account in its admissions process through this really dodgy process called "holistic" application review, or basically the notion that the application reader's touchy feely opinion of the student is king. The major charge is that application readers look at the application more favorably if there is a mention of race, and that is not likely preferable as a applicant if your father is a diplomat from Hong Kong and your major hardship was getting a lesser BMW than you wanted for your sweet 16. The report also charges that UC Berkeley uses similar admissions review processes and is more touchy feely; therefore is also quite likely to be subverting state law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-ucla30-2008aug30,0,776059.story

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/CUARS.Resignation.Report.pdf

Now here is the primary beef at UC Berkeley. Look at the admissions data by SAT Score for applicants who were admitted and decided to come to Berkeley. The margin between the median SAT Score by race from Black/Hispanic and White/Asian is enormous. Furthermore, the margin between Chinese and everyone else is even more enormous. This data is unfortunately pre-2006, but it still says a whole lot about what's been going on these last few years. From what I've heard, the present data trends are similar.

Year 2005 Median SAT Scores For Freshman Registrants: 135
• American Indian: 1335

• White: 1360

• Asian American Average: 1380

• International: 1430

• Chinese & Korean: 1410

• East Indian: 1410

• Filipino/Pacific Islander: 1290/1300

• African American: 1080

• Hispanic: 1140

https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/STAFFWEB/KW/sat.percentiles/median_tables/tbl10.html

Look at that enormous discrepancy! What factor specifically caused the average admitted and enrolled Hispanic and African-American groups to get in despite scoring an average of about 200-300 points below the major White and Asian peer groups? What elements were so spectacular in their applications that made up for the obvious deficiency in test scores? Did these groups have an abundance of extra curricular or leadership attributes that the average Asian or White did not have? It certainly can't be GPA, as the school's provided tables show a lower average GPA for these groups as well. Maybe it is just me, but I'm going to say that, in the words of David Letterman, "something doesn't smell right."

This is a civil rights issue. This is a government entity discriminating against its citizens. This is a whole group of people in that 200-300 point SAT margin that did not get into Berkeley. Citizens have a right to an investigation of UC Berkeley's admissions office for these potentially high crimes.

More Links on the Issue

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/08/25_fall08-stats.shtml

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/04/14_admits_table.shtml

https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/STUDENT.DATA/PUBLICATIONS/UG/ugf07.html

https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/STAFFWEB/KW/sat.percentiles/median_tables/tbl6.html

Really Hilarious McCain Quotes = I Heart John McCain

"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." --at a 1998 Republican fundraiser

•

"Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people. Hollywood is a Washington for the simpleminded."

•

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."

•

"I said, 'The nice thing about Alzheimer's is you get to hide your own Easter eggs.'"

•

"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." -to his wife, Cindy, after she playfully twirled his hair and said "You're getting a little thin up there,"
•

"You know the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is a scum-sucking bottom-dweller. The other is a fish."

•

"My Social Security number is 8." --joking with Jay Leno
•

"You know, by a strange coincidence I was not elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate this year." --after being asked by Rev. Rick Warren about going against his party

•

"The good news is that we now have enough money to run the entire campaign in Colorado. The bad news is, some of that money is still in your wallets and purses." --speaking at a fundraiser in Aspen, Colorado

"Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room." --to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), during a testy exchange about immigration legislation

•

"I had something picked out for you, too - a little IED (improvised explosive device) to put on your desk." --to Jon Stewart
•

"In case you missed it, a few days ago Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time." --on the years he spent as a P.O.W. in Vietnam

•

"Thanks for the question, you little jerk." -- John McCain, after being asked by a high school student if he was too old to be president. For good measure, McCain then threatened to draft him.
•

"Remember the words of Chairman Mao: 'It's always darkest before it's totally black.'"

•

"Presidential ambition is a disease that can only be cured by embalming fluid."

•

"I'm older than dirt, I've got more scars than Frankenstein, but I've learned a few things along the way."
•

"Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it." --to reporters in New Hampshire after being asked him about Mitt Romney

•

"We spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue." --on wasteful congressional spending
•

"I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?"
•

"We have a lot of work to do. It's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border." --referring to a border that does not exist, ABC News interview, July 21, 2008

•

"I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need." --New York Times interview, July 13, 2008

•

"Maybe that's a way of killing them." --responding to a report that $158 million in cigarettes have been shipped to Iran during Bush's presidency despite restrictions on U.S. exports to that country, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 8, 2008
•

"I will veto every single beer, um, bill with earmarks." --speaking at the National Small Business Summit, Washington, D.C., June 10, 2008 (Watch video clip)

•

"Well, basically, it's a Google." --on how he's conducting his VP search, Richmond, Virginia, June 9, 2008
•

"We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies." --Kenner, Louisiana, June 3, 2008

•

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." --breaking into song after being asked at a VFW meeting about whether it was time to send a message to Iran, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, April 18, 2007 (Watch video clip)
•

"I will conduct a respectful debate. Now, it will be dispirited -- it will be spirited -- because there are stark differences. I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica-- conservative Republican...Hello? Easy there."

•

"I am a illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." -after being asked whether us uses a Mac or a PC.
•

"It's not social issues I care about."

•

"No, I'm calling you a fucking jerk." --to fellow Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, when Grassley asked "Are you calling me stupid?"
•

"Only an asshole would put together a budget like this ... I wouldn't call you an asshole unless you really were an asshole." --to Budget Committee Chairman and fellow Repulican Sen. Pete Domenici, during a Senate budget hearing

SOURCE: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccain/a/mccain-quotes.htm

Complied by Daniel Kurtzman

Interesting Electoral College Scenarios

Here is today's electoral college map, making the assumption that all swing states go to the person currently leading, no matter the margin. According to this, Barack Obama wins the election 273-265. In order for this to happen, McCain will win Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Nevada - he doesn't have comfortable margins in either Nevada, Virginia, or Ohio. However, this assumes Obama will retain his very uncomfortable leads in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Minnesota (all under 3%). Keep in mind that McCain is likely to keep Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Nevada, meaning he needs to turn over only one other swing state to win (with the exception of New Hampshire). Pennsylvania, Colorado, or another dark horse state could easily go McCain's way.


According to recently released data, Obama could lose roughly 6 percentage points on election day because he is black. In other words, when the pollsters call folks, they feel comfortable being "progressive" because it is not their real vote. However, when they actually get in the voting booth and have to make that critical decision, they will vote for the safe candidate, which is John McCain. Anyway, assuming Obama loses 6 percentage point in each state, above is the resulting electoral victory for McCain - an absolute sweep (this is also assuming McCain gains no points and being very generous towards Obama - just dropping Obama's percentage 6% and keeping McCain's the same, even though that's not really realistic). It's fascinating that Washington currently has Obama leading McCain 49-45, which is an extremely small margin for a state like Washington. Consider New Mexico, a reasonably red state, having Obama leading 50-44. It is unfathomable that Washington is a narrower swing state. Also consider solidly Blue Minnesota, the only state to have not voted for Ronald Reagan, having a 47-45 lead for Obama - that's only 2%, also unfathomable. The point is that if polling behavior is really slightly different from voting behavior, it's going to be a very tough race for Obama.


What if everything is near the current status quo come election day, except McCain wins New Hampshire, in which he is only trailing by a little over a percentage point? That would give both candidates 269 electoral votes. In that case, the House would cast their vote for Obama (for President, the constitutional responsibility of the House), and the Senate would cast a tie for the VP vote since Lieberman (no longer a Democrat), would cast his vote for Sarah Palin. This 50-50 tie would then go to Vice President Cheney, who would most certainly vote for Sarah Palin. Boy, the Democrats were stupid for crossing Joe Lieberman. He's already spoken at the RNC, and now he might swing a VP election to Sarah Palin, with president Barack Hussein Obama! It's called karma Democrats - karma for swinging so far to the left that you oust absolutely respectable, honorable, and moderate Joe Lieberman. Horrible!

What The Fa MotherFa? Why Be A Republican With These Positions?

Recently I was verbally assaulted by a fellow Facebooker for some of my posted items and notes being "propaganda" and furthermore called a "chickenhawk". It's true that I have made no secret of my preference for John McCain in this election, but that still does not qualify this guy calling me a "chickenhawk". Instead of being a pussy and whining about it, I got us into an extensive message battle in which I explained why I should not be called a chickenhawk, and I stated some positions that are regarded as centrist to liberal. He then retorted, "Why on earth are you voting for John McCain?" I realized at that point that I had been asked that a lot, so I'm going to clarify exactly what I believe and how that likely correlates into a center-right preference. In summary, I'm pretty libertarian, i.e. conservative on economic/military issues and liberal on social issues. So why vote for the GOP? Because first and foremost I view economic issues and the limited role of government as king, and social issues are just philosophical formations to which I subscribe but have no use for. If you ask me whether I'm more likely to be overtaxed or have a gay marriage, I'd say hopefully overtaxed (yes Carlos, I can anticipate your retort already). If David Beckham offered me a gay marriage and half of his estate, you would see me swiftly move to the Democratic Party. And a year later, you would see me get a swift gay divorce and be swimming amongst Ferraris and Heidi Fleiss's whores.

_______________________________________
Here are some excerpts from my message regarding my political philosophy:

"Needless to say, I'm a tad bit disappointed. I take great enjoyment in my political writing, satire, and being provocative and inflammatory. Most of my FB friends (whom I know nearly all in person) know that."

"I'm sorry you disagree with my viewpoints. Most of my friends do, yet I have fun in a political back and forth jabbing and also enjoy substantive dialogue on the issues. We "jab back and forth" all the time (yes, via Facebook), reminding each other of our other candidates' triumphs and falldowns. It's a sport and a game - not that politics is a sport - it's a real sad affair actually - but one that is so sad that it needs to be livened up and "sportinized" in order to survive it. If I had conservative friends (Berkeley - hello?), my notes would be no fun and unprovocative."

"When other people incessantly post stuff about McCain being old, Bush being a retard, and Obama soaring in the polls, I take a friendly jab and then respect them for their viewpoints, because apparently with the exception of me everyone else is entitled to them."

"Despite my hope for a quick withdrawal, preference for gay marriage/LGBT rights, pro-choice position, hope for more public transportation infrastructure, progressive support for a female VP, alternative energy/environmental protection, stem cell research, moderate gun control position, support of vouchers to allow the less unfortunate and minorities to get a better education..."

"...but don't let any of that get in the way of calling me a chickenhawk."

____________________________________
I then clarified my positions (excerpt):

Because first and foremost I value economic freedom and freedom from a large oppressive government that overtaxes its citizens and then wastes their money with no accountability. No matter how rich or poor anyone is, they should not be unfairly taxed. I passionately believe in that. While that won't change much with McCain, and the Republicans have been terribly tax & spend as well, I cannot accept the Democratic party (especially Obama's) rhetoric and action on the issue.

I believe in every citizen earning their way in a market economy, and believe that redistribution harms people on the lower economic rungs by creating dependency and never giving incentive for people of lower economic status to move out of that class. I believe in Clinton's (wildly unpopular with Democrats) Welfare Reform Act.

You of course are familiar with how unions have brought down the airline industry (and other industry). Unions have outgrown their use, and whichever party has them in their back pocket is the party I cannot accept.

School choice - I sincerely want our schools improved - especially for the lowest tiers of society - and guess which party is in bed with public school teachers' unions, hijacking everybody's right to a good education. [If you allot $8000 dollars to each student/parent instead of investing the money solely in the school to which their child would normally subscribe, the student/parent can choose whether the school he goes to is good enough - if it's not, private institutions will be clamoring to take that $8000 to give a superior education. Then in order to survive, the public school will up their game if they have to compete against private institutions for the student].
I love immigrants and immigration, but we can't continue to be a country that can't properly account for who is in it [and the resulting balance of resources]. Whichever party at least has more rhetoric towards closing the borders is my party. McCain had a reasonable proposal on this about a year or so back.

Iraq is a mess/stupid idea, but there's no denying that the surge, which McCain supported and Barack didn't, was the right thing to do in stabilizing Iraq and will allow us to pull out AND have a relative amount of success in securing the country.

McCain = better than Bush on environment [went across party lines and co-sponsored bills promoting the environment and fighting global warming]

McCain = female VP, open to pro-choice VP

Whichever party/candidate is the best on those issues is first and foremost the one I will lean towards. I'm not rich - I just believe in smaller government - the power of the individual [and freedom from government oppression].

It's also a function of where I grew up and how I developed my thinking, but I'm sincere and passionate about a conservative libertarian ideology - I'm not evil, I'm not a religious fanatic, I don't hate gays...I just have ideas about the fundamental nature of government.

______________________________________________
Some More Issues Discussion (Liberal Positions):

I am pro-choice. However, I have a strong pro-life ethos and I loathe how too many left-leaning people are too quick to dismiss excellent arguments from pro-life groups. I did write a blogpost about the abortion issue, in which I fundamentally concluded that ending the right to an abortion would first and foremost be dangerous to women who really want/need an abortion and take illegitimate back door procedures to get one and the logistical nightmare of the government/taxpayer supporting 40 million unwanted babies that would have been born since the 1970's and more than likely be a drain on society financially and in terms of resources (prison, welfare, etc). I do however dismiss the notion that an abortion is something that women should be willy-nilly entitled to and I condemn the amount of abortions that have occurred in which lots women have no one to blame but themselves and should be deserving of no sympathy for murdering their child.

I believe in background checks for guns. Not every idiot, especially one with a hint of a criminal record, should be allowed to purchase a gun. However, law-abiding Americans have the right to own a gun for protection or whatever they see fit. As an American, you should be able to own or operate whatever you want, but when you infringe on the life or property of another American, you should be punished to the full extent of the law.

I believe in states rights to decide gay marriage, at minimum. It's been a long road to this conclusion, and I've come to believe that gays in a legitimate relationship should not be barred from having the same legal and ceremonial rights that straight Americans have come to enjoy. When you bring marriage into the "state", marriage is no longer the property of religious groups - it is the property of all people and therefore no citizen should be denied access to it. However I am not a fan of a large sector of gay separatism, and that is gays being hostile to Americans who happen to have more traditional values just for the sake of history and tit-for-tat. If gays want gay marriage to be an accepted concept in America, they need to separate themselves (no pun intended) from a separatist culture that usually includes severe indoctrination in leftist ideology. Be the better man (or queen), and accept their right to their opinion just as you should be allowed to have yours.

Travel Stats Review: End of an Era

Effective 12:00AM Eastern Standard Time on August 21, 2008, my 23 year tenure as a non-revenue (free flight) dependent had come to a close. It's extremely sad to me that I can no longer have the world at my fingertips with the click of a button, and I feel really small and confined in California against the backdrop of a world that has become quite huge again.

The good news is that I've gone to so many places, seen so many great things, and met so many cool people along the way. I've been asked if by a few people if I'd ever documented my travels or compiled any stats. As a tribute to my illustrious "career", I thought I'd put those stats into a note, both for my own self interest and those who might care. Also, a few interesting "what Delta was a few years ago" flights.

As a background, my mom worked for Pan Am from 1966 to 1991, and Delta from 1991 to Present. Children of airline employees at all levels are entitled to travel benefits, and in Delta's case, absolutely free domestic & international travel in the most premium cabin available. This standby travel, or getting space in the highest cabin or even on the plane, is ordered by active/retiree/affiliate and seniority.

Anyway, here we go:

I've been to:

• 29 countries (thanks Vatican City!)

• All six inhabited continents

• 27 US States

I've Cleared US Customs through 7 gateways in order of frequency:

• Atlanta (Asia, Europe, Middle East, South America)

• New York (Europe)

• Los Angeles (Asia, Central America, Europe)

• Miami (Central America, South America)

• Cincinnati (Europe)

• Honolulu (Australia)

• Salt Lake City (Mexico)

International Connections:

• Cleared a connecting flight from Cairo in CDG (Paris), a connecting flight to Athens in FCO (Rome), a connecting flight from Dublin to New York in SNN (Shannon), and connecting flights to/from Singapore in NRT (Tokyo).

US Noteworthy/Major Cities I've Been To:

• Anchorage, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charleston, Cincinnati, Columbia, Dallas, Denver, Des Moines, Fort Lauderdale, Hartford, Honolulu, Ithaca, Kahului, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Savannah, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Tallahassee, Trenton, Washington DC

Major/Noteworthy International Cities I've Been To (Non-Connecting):

• Amman, Amsterdam, Aqaba, Aruba, Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Colonia, Cordoba, Dubai, Dublin, Eliat, Guatemala City, Heidelberg, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Jerusalem, London [January 2009], Madrid, Mazatlan, Melbourne, Milan, Montevideo, Nice, Paris, Petra, Rome, Rosario, San Salvador, Santiago de Chile, Sevilla, Singapore, Stuttgart, Sydney, Tangier, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Vatican City, Venice, Victoria, Vienna

Favorite Cities

• Amsterdam, Barcelona, Boston, Buenos Aires, Charleston, Dubai, Honolulu, Madrid, Melbourne, New York, Paris, Seattle, Sevilla, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Venice

Countries I've Been to More Than Once:

• Argentina, El Salvador, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain

Airlines I've Flown (In Order of Frequency):

• Delta

• Pan Am
• SkyWest, ExpressJet, Comair, ASA\

• Southwest

• American

• United

• Qantas

• Northwest

• Air France

• Alitalia

Top City Pairs (Possibly Via Connecting Gateways):

• Los Angeles-San Francisco

• Los Angeles-Salt Lake City (to get other places)

• Los Angeles-Atlanta

• Los Angeles-New York

• Los Angeles-Honolulu

• San Francisco-Honolulu

• San Francisco-New York

• Los Angeles-Orlando

• Los Angeles-Seattle

• Los Angeles-Oakland

My More Interesting Flights Mostly Outside of Atlanta/New York:

• Los Angeles-Melbourne (QF)

• Los Angeles-Hong Kong (Delta)

• Los Angeles-Guatemala City (Pan Am)

• Melbourne-Sydney (QF)

• Sydney-Honolulu (QF)

• Miami-San Salvador (Pan Am)

• Miami-Buenos Aires (Pan Am)

• Paris-Los Angeles (American)

• Cairo-Paris (Air France)

• Rome-Athens (Alitalia)

• Tokyo-Singapore (Northwest)

• Salt Lake City-Mazatlan (Delta)

• Honolulu-Salt Lake City (Delta)

• Kahului-Atlanta (Delta)

• New York-Nice (Pan Am)

• New York-Istanbul (Pan Am)

• Los Angeles-San Francisco (United 747)

First Flight:

• Los Angeles-New York (Pan Am 747)

Longest International Flight (Tied):

• Dubai-Atlanta (15h:15m)

• Los Angeles-Melbourne (15h:15m)

Longest Domestic Flight:

• Atlanta-Kahului (9h)

International Flights in Coach:

• Aruba-Atlanta

• Tokyo-Atlanta (1 of 2)

• Rome-Athens

• Los Angeles-Melbourne

• Melbourne-Sydney

• Sydney-Honolulu

International Flights in a Premium Class:

• everything not listed above

Domestic Flights I've Flown In a BusinessElite Cabin (long since discontinued):

• New York-Los Angeles (763)

• New York-Salt Lake City (763)

• New York-Cincinnati (763)

• New York-Atlanta (763, 777)

• Atlanta-Los Angeles (763, 777)

• Atlanta-Orlando (777)

• Atlanta-Denver (763)

• Atlanta-Kahului (763)

• Cincinnati-Los Angeles (763)

• Orlando-Los Angeles (M11)

Flights With Startling Capacity Levels (long since discontinued):

• Salt Lake City-Los Angeles (763D)

• Salt Lake City-New York (763D redeye)

• Cincinnati-San Francisco (763D)

• Orlando-Los Angeles (763D, L1011, M11)

Other Tidbits:

• never had a bonafide in-flight emergency

• longest layover in an airport: 17 hours (ATL, 6A to 11P)

• longest continuous sleep: Atlanta-Dubai, 10.5 hours

• longest time overseas: 3 weeks

• shortest time overseas: 19 hours

• farthest point from Los Angeles: Singapore

• states not mentioned in cities: New Mexico, Kentucky, North Carolina

• Planes I've Been on: MD88, MD90, MD11, 727, 732, 733, 738, 747SP, 744, 757, 762, 763, 764, 777, DC10, L1011, A310, A320, A330, CRJ, CR7, CR9, ERJ

And yes, I'm a nerd :)

Dear Democrats: What May I Ask Is Wrong With You?

As Republicans, we weren't initially really worried about this election. We understood that like the economy, politics is a very cyclical thing. We understood that we were primed to lose this election, and Dear Democrats, it was yours to walk away with. May I asked how you fucked up so badly that Grandpa McCain and a sexy librarian from Alaska have a more than 50/50 chance of winning this election?

You had the chance to nominate the glorious Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom I lovingly refer to as H. Clinton. H. Clinton had the backing of the most powerful political force in America: herself and Bill "presidential kneepads" Clinton. This political team had the political experience and wherewithal that the American people trust. Moderate H. Clinton had the backing of working class white men and women all over America - a group that might very well sink this election for Barack in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. Most importantly though, H. Clinton had the "American" wherewithal to win in this election, in that she is not a European-esque far-left secular progressive loon that has been endorsed by moveon.org - this white working class voting bloc of which I speak loathes those kind of people, and the secular-progressive leftist media has not fully done its job in revealing Barack Obama's ties to these groups.

To highlight this, I present Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a Democrat socialite who was strongly supporting H. Clinton. Today, Ms. Rothschild has just come out in full support of John McCain. Some of the reasons Mrs. Rothschild cited were the following:

"I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party — and they will continue to — too far to the left. I'm not comfortable there."

"I believe that the McCain-Palin government will be a centrist government," Rothschild said. "It's not going to be an ideological government."

Links:

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_clinton_backer
• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/prominent-clinton-backer-and-dnc-member-to-endorse-mccain/

Also, Hillary Clinton supporter Donald Trump has endorsed John McCain on Larry King Live. Donald Trump is no doubt one of the most savviest business people in America, and with his being a relatively moderate pragmatist, his endorsement carriers a lot of weight.

Link:• http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13558.html

Mrs. Rothschild and Mr. Trump are doing exactly what moderate, sane Democrats all over America should be doing - standing up to your party's horrible decisions made by the media and the far-left elite! If you do not vote for Barack Obama, and voice your displeasure en masse, you send a direct message to these elements that have hijacked the Democratic party that they cannot do this to you - that they cannot hijack your party! The Democratic Party under JFK and Clinton stood for something: it stood for the people, not Barbra Streisand and moveon.org. You are crucial to the survival of this party, and if they don't have you on board, they lose everything! By abstaining to vote or voting for McCain, who is most bipartisan and best for the country, you create a loss and force the Democratic party to adapt to your needs next time. You hold the power! H. Clinton 2012.

McCain is Most Bipartisan link:http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

What Will Obama Do Now That He's Not The Only Rockstar?

The Republican Party, ya know - that stodgy thing for old people, has just stolen and will continue to steal the revolutionary and rockstar thunder that once belonged solely to Barack Hussein Obama. By the time Election 2008 rolls around, Sarah Palin - whom you'll notice I selected as McCain's should-be VP pick days before her announcement - will be America's new buzz and leave Barack Hussein Obama in the dust as old news. So what does Sarah Palin have that McCain does not? Well, that would include experience, bi-partisanship, beauty, directness, tenacity, authenticity, humor, and an all American homestyle feel - she's an absolutely incredible person that will leave Barack Obama looking like an unauthentic overeducated sop.

Liberal pundits are already knocking Sarah Palin for a lack of experience, even though ironically she has about as much experience as the Democrats' top ticket guy. However, Barack Obama is a measly do nothing Senator in a measly do nothing Democratic Controlled Senate. As Mike Huckabee correctly pointed out, Senators pick one or two pet projects and pretty much do nothing. A governor, however, is an executive in an office that's much like the micro-scale of the presidency. The governor must make tons of prudent executive decisions in one day that can have lasting effects. The governor gets as much executive experience in one day of the office than one gets in one year in the Senate. Barack Obama has no experience as an executive - he's either sat in a big office or a big Senate Chamber spewing out his do-nothing rounds of intellectual snobbery.

Sarah Palin, a heartfelt fighter that cares about government working for and being accountable to the people, has had a tremendous amount of executive experience in ways that exactly counter the ways that Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branches betray the philosophy of their party. Her record shows her as a clear fighter against special interests and pork-barrel. In her short tenure, she's worked tirelessly to get corrupt politicians (often from her own party) removed and vetoed loads of wasteful spending. She was an ardent opponent of Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere".

In case you haven't noticed, Sarah Palin is a babe. She might be the first president that will ever be masturbated to. She's nice, and puts off this soccer mom MILF vibe/imagery that will send guys in this country nuts. For the sheer rockstar appeal, people who think outside the political establishment might have a choice between the first cool black guy to run or the first soccer mom babe - giving people options. She's also a fun bubbly person that people will like. Outside of that superficiality, Sarah Palin is authentically one of the nicest, caring, and non-self serving people in America and likely in all of politics. However, she will fiercely take down any opponent that she does not believe has the best interests of America (aka, their own selfish political interests) in mind. In addition, she has a propensity for these one line zingers that simply sting and shut down her opponents. Women will admire her power, her authenticity, and hopefully elect McCain/Palin so their daughters can see that someone who grew up normally like themselves truly have a shot at being America's president or VP. Most women in America, except hardnosed liberals, are more concerned about having a woman VP that cares about family interests than they are with abortion-on-demand.

Barack Obama doesn't feel authentic to the American people because he speaks above them (the intellectual snobbery of which I regularly speak). Sarah Palin speaks to them, and is one of them - while still being brilliant and tenacious. She didn't go to Columbia and become a politican through rockstardom and intellectual snobbery. She's a true American Dream story - a normal woman who wants change for her kids, for their generation, and starts from the very bottom and rises to the top with consistent hard-work and an authentic desire for the common good that voters recognize - her extreme popularity in Alaska speaks to this. In regards to her abortion stance, Sarah Palin is uniquely pro-life not because she's a religious zealot or doesn't value women's rights, but because she earnestly cares about the sanctity of all human life. Despite knowing her latest son, Trig, was going to have Down Syndrome, she refused to have an abortion and will likely love him as much as her other kids. Her socially conservative credentials will be more accepted in the mainstream because they seem to be issues she authentically cares about as opposed to carefully crafted political calculations.

Sarah Palin is America's true maverick, and represents true hope and change for America. Not Barack BG (big government) Obama.

Veepstakes: John McCain vs. Barack Obama

John McCain's Best Selections:

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is the younger, attractive, extremely smart, sensible, and practical female governer of Alaska. In this election where America wants to see "change", McCain's selection of Palin would certainly represent "change" and show that McCain is a politican that certainly believes in "change". Palin represents a similar change that can be had with a Lieberman ticket, except her reasonably conservative credentials will not cause any defection of the party base (except a few rednecks who couldn't fathom the idea of a woman president). Should Barack Obama select a white male politician as VP, McCain's selection of Palin would make him seem real progressive and be the real agent of change - a severe embarrassment to Obama. In addition, Palin would help John McCain seal the Hillary women and moderate Democrats - the lucrative 20-30% of Hillary supporters who say that they will refuse to support a Barack Obama ticket.

Joe Lieberman

Lieberman shows America that John McCain is really serious about killing the establishment and not being a whore to devisive partisan politics. Lieberman is a practical pro-America politican who very much represents America's center. If you look at all the states in play, it seems the margin of victory will be decided narrowly by the center. As for Republicans claiming they will defect or not come out to vote, it simply is an empty threat. Any Republican with half a brain will accept Lieberman as a low-position VP who can't really do much anyway over the potentially devastating President Barack Obama. The rednecks who have trouble with Lieberman's abortion views are already dead-set against having a heavy abortionist named "Hussein" getting near the white house. They'll come around.

Barack Obama's Best Selections

Evan Bayh

I would vote for Evan Bayh. Being a somewhat hefty Republican, I think that says a lot. While Bayh certainly will not get me on board with a Barack Obama ticket, it might get a decent amount of moderate/centrist Floridians, Ohioans, Pennsylvanians, Nevadans, and dare I say, uh, "Indianains". Without those, Obama cannot expect to win the electoral college. Should you need background, Evan Bayh is a very reasonable, practical, and centrist New Democrat coalition member who could possibly make Barack Obama look like less of an appeasement communist hack.

H. Rodham Clinton

The liberal media doesn't want to tell you that the Democratic Party is divided. However, it is, and the selection of H. Clinton will work to heal those wounds. Also, some regard Barack Obama as too far from the political establishment, and too much change will result in an inability to play Washington. However, we all know that Hillary Clinton and her dirty weasely claws sure know how to play Washington (as well as B. Jefferson "Is My Peepee Out?" Clinton).

My Selections

• McCain/Palin

• Obama/Bayh

The Time Has Come to Mobilize Against America's Greatest Threat: Barack Obama

What was any small credibility the Democratic Party ever had left had been totally eradicated by the nomination of B. Hussein Obama.

In their worst scheme to date, the Democrats have developed a dangerous religion - a dangerous cult. A cult designed to mystify and awe based on idolatry and superstardom. One, that like a cult, preys on people's greatest fears in a cyclically slumping economy. One that sells indulgences in the form of votes. One that exploits a fragile American condition by convincing America that the empty promise of "Obamatology" is real. The Democrats, being mostly comprised of Atheists, have actually found their God in the form of Barack Obama. One that has actually convinced a severely delusional America that he can move mountains, and unlike anybody else, can part the murky seas of and impart change upon the unnavigable waters of the red-tape and bloated partisan and processed American government.

Barack Obama is absolutely nothing except a Hollywood actor in the grandest psychological and sociological engineering hoax in America's history. Never has their been a time when someone so politically insignificant and so out of touch with American values been elevated to the point that he has a 50/50 shot of winning the US presidency. Elements used to build and engineer this God like cult of Obama include visible worship by the liberal media, white guilt, youth/sexuality, the power of imagery, the erection of a Hitler like cult of personality, and utilization of Obama's powerful Hitler-quality speaking skills.

In order to cover up their magnificent ruse, the holy engineers of Obamatology are claiming that Obama's groundbreaking surge in popularity can be attributed to Obama having an all around parallel to JFK. Unfortunately, Obama is no JFK. The core difference being that JFK believed in and wanted to build upon American values, whereas B. Hussein Obama believes in and wants to build upon European values. JFK believed in economic freedom and free markets. JFK believed that a mighty American military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world. JFK believed in the might of every American - every American as equal - and decried affirmative action. JFK was a proponent of the death penalty. JFK's wife was the classiest lady in the world, not a horrid "for the first time I'm proud of my country" secular-progressive barbarian. JFK would have been tossed out of today's Democratic party.

JFK's intentions were noble in Bay of Pigs. JFK would have railed against the horrific Hugo Chavez. JFK loathed communism, obviously. Vietnam? Russia? JFK also did not go all "good night and good luck" and refused to condemn Joe McCarthy's noble anti-communist crusade. Obama, while not an "out" communist, keeps regular company with and is heavily supported by groups and persons with heavy communist sympathies. Need I mention who moveon.org, the Daily Kos, Hugo Chavez, Susan Sarandon, and Danny Glover support? You can smell the secular-progressive stench conspicuously oozing from B.O.'s pores day by day.

Obama believes in a free market blend. What the hell is that? Either the market is free or it isn't. And it sure isn't going to be any freer with public school unions and other various unions requiring payback after they've put so much money in the coffers of Queen Obama. Not to mention the recent pro-union business climate bill that Obama is trying to push through Congress. An America controlled by labor is extremely dangerous. Foreign investment has already pulled out enough. Do you want to see it pull out further and watch our economy crumble? A healthy business climate is based on a fair free market wage - when unions demand that their workers are paid more than the market will bear, prices get thrown out of whack, the market gets thrown out of whack, and the whole system comes crumbling down.

Obama's inital position on the military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is dangerous. In other words, when he had no evidence that miliary action was not required and not appropriate, he still chose to break with 99% of his colleagues (and side with Barbara Lee, the most dangerous politican in America), and opposed the invasions because he is simply an anti-war Code Pink liberal pansy fruit. What happens the next time when military invasion happens to be the prudent course of action? Can we trust Obama to not be his self-demonstrated form of Code Pink pansy? I think not.

And here's a fabulous reality for you! What if they rename "New York's John F. Kennedy Airport" to "New York's Barack Hussein Obama International Airport"? It will rival the King Abdulaziz International Airport in Jeddah and the Al Maktoum International Airport in Dubai. Wouldn't it be even funnier if the guy that orders the signage for the airport accidentally orders an extra "S" instead of a "B", effectively naming the airport "New York's Barack Hussein Osama International Airport"?

I've mentioned Obama's dangerous positions in my previous posts, but his cult of personality is what's most dangerous and most urgent - and we must mobilize the country to counter this dangerous cult. With an almost God like international admiration, he could have the ability to persuade the US and the world to move closer to a dangerous moveon.org and CodePink mentality, which despite a fradulent cover as a moderate, form the cornerstone of B. Hussein Obama's political sympathies.

JFK is rolling over in his grave.

Australia

Australia - no doubt that this was the most important and best trip of my life. As many of you know, prior to this summer I had been to five out of six of the "inhabited" continents, and never thought I'd make it out to Aussie land so soon. I considered my going to Australia, my sixth continent, a significant lifetime achievement, something that if I died tomorrow might be said about me in a eulogy. The world is a big confusing place and there's an incredible sense of accomplishment and awe over going to every corner of it. It helps you both understand more about other people and ourselves. The idea of "ourselves" as a worldwide people would have been laughable to me just in the California bubble. Also, I guess I've always had a fascination with people - maybe it's because I can't relate to them very well so I have to see and analyze to help me understand.

Another part of the travel is escaping temporary problems in life - or what I perceive to be problems and less fortunate people would view as minor puny setbacks, like Donald Trump's ice division of Trump Corporation going under. I'm such a brat - when guys my age are living in cardboard boxes, hustling for a living, or rotting in rehab, I'm whining about a little bit of nothing.

Anyway, back to Australia.

Melbourne
For my sixth floor roomies, I can report that I got to see our favorite Australian ever, a Miss Anna Jaffe. I can also report that Anna is doing very well. She's as resplendent as ever, even though she won't ever say so. As usual, Anna dodged my picture taking, much like she did around Berkeley. She also was embarrassed by my being so touristy with my huge camera, and demanded I invest in a new one. Anna was also infuriated when I attempted to do a "Steve Irwin"-ish Australian accent - she issued her usual death threats :)

I had the pleasure of being taken around St. Kilda and various parts of Melbourne by Anna and her friend "Procle". Between Anna, Procle, and my Sephardic Jew curls, our presence was like just another day at Temple. Anna and Procle also were mindblowing specimens of this incredible Australian banter and sarcasm we've been hearing about so much in the states. It was a beautiful, constant back and forth sort of "language". As we all know Anna's facility for language, you can imagine how well she performed in the competitive back and forth. If you can imagine anything much the opposite, envision a couple of elderly country folk in the back woods of Tennessee talking about mundane straightforward things in a turtlesque voice. Procle also accused Anna of being "demanding", which of course Anna vehemently denied. Anna was in fact extraordinarily generous, especially allowing me to be so touristy and treating me near the entire day at her insistence.

Some cool things we did included Anna forcing me to drink coffee, despite my strong distaste for the mudlike liquid. She then described how Australian coffee is far superior to any coffee found in the states. Apparently it's not about the beans, but all about the "process". We also went to Luna Park in St. Kilda, which has this legendary mini-Colossus like roller coaster that gives you great views of the beach and St. Kilda. Then the beach. Then a 90 story tower in Melbourne. And a casino...by the way, Anna has developed a severe gambling problem (just kidding Anna). Anna misses you guys, and for Christina, guys and girls. It was an amazing day - thanks again Anna.

Sydney
Absolutely incredible city, just incredible. There's a special feeling that you get being in Sydney that is indescribable. Anyway, I just did the main touristy things, like the Harbours, Opera House, all the requisite buildings and sites, Olympic Park, the Blue Mountains, and Taronga Zoo. Despite all these sites being amazing, what was really incredible for me was just the feeling of being in the city. No other city has quite capitvated me like that before.

Travel Experience/Routing for Qantas and Delta

Los Angeles-Melbourne (747) 23JUL 11:40P-25JUL 7:30A
Melbourne-Sydney (737) 27JUL 6:00A-7:20A
Sydney-Honolulu (763) 30JUL 7:45P-30JUL 9:30A

Qantas was an incredible travel experience from LAX-MEL. Incredible service, incredible entertainment, incredible food, incredible goodies, and the incredible experience of once again flying on a 747 (which I haven't done for a good few years, and not with regularity since flying to New York on Pan Am). It was also extremely strange boarding an international flight right in Los Angeles. I'm so used to having to go through a Delta "gateway" like Atlanta or New York to get somewhere important and global. I also got to experience the "disappearing day" that happens when you cross the international date line overnight

MEL-SYD included a full small breakfast in coach for a 1 hour flight. Wow. After that, I was treated to the beautiful airport that is Sydney's Kingsford Smith.

SYD-HNL was nice. No in-seat entertainment, but still a nice flight.

HNL-LAX connecting on Delta. Late as usual. Finally in first class though, and great service, working in-seat entertainment, and what I thought was a great meal.

The End

I thank God for every one of these incredible experiences. It is such an amazing gift and I'm grateful I've been able to see all that I have so far.

Melbourne:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2343295&l=0bf6e&id=1219649

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2343311&l=69877&id=1219649

Sydney/Inland New South Wales: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2343816&l=9946f&id=1219649 http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2343860&l=5cac2&id=1219649 http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2343918&l=260fd&id=1219649 http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2343963&l=eb9c2&id=1219649 http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2343968&l=7ca4b&id=1219649

Barack Obama and the Donkey Dilemma

As I've long predicted, America would come to understand the true nature of Barack Obama and toss him aside like the elitist (however not nearly as douchebag) John Forbes Kerry-esque snob that he is. Since America was too stupid to analyze his ultra-left voting record, it took a revelation of a twenty year relationship with a disgusting ultra-left and ultra-racist pastor (who thinks the government manufactured the AIDS virus to dispose of minorities) for Americans to realize that B. Obama is a liberal nutcase. Furthermore, Obama really must think we're quite stupid for believing that he never knew his pastor had these racist anti-American sympathies and that he conveniently was not at church when Wright was incessantly spewing his filth. And did I forget to mention Obama's horrid patronizing comments about normal Americans clinging to guns and religion to assuage their economic problems? His contempt for normal non-San Francisco secular progressive snobs is disgusting.

Now the Democrats are having quite a problem and I'm enjoying it very much; they wish they could take back their ballyhooing over Obama now that America has figured out how politically and personally revolting he is. Unfortunately for them, they've electorally puffered up Obama to be their nominee and have found out that my precious H. Rodham Clinton is so much more mainstream and electable (evident by H. Clinton trouncing McCain in the most recent polls by 9%). They've found out that America does not elect radical anti-American red diaper babies. Not to mention one that has next to no experience.

Liberals love to attack their Obama opponents for being racist and not fulfulling their white guilt obligations, but the truth of the matter is that Obama is not black. Obama is genetically 50% white; his mother was a pale far-left secular progressive communist loon from Kansas. Saying Obama would be the first black president ever is like saying I would be the first Hispanic president ever because I'm 50% Latin American - it's simply not the case because I'm functionally white. Obama is in fact less black than he is Arab. He looks very much like an Arab coming from a region that straddles the Northeastern part of equitorial Africa and looks nothing like regular African-Americans. He is also culturally white - despite his dalliances in Chicago, he is a fundamental product of Honolulu and Indonesia, where there are no African-Americans to be found.

Here's another thing that everyone in America is totally onto him about - he is not a Muslim - but an Atheist. His grotesque secular-progressive snobbery is characteristic of no one else but a liberal atheist (likely from San Francisco). Good decent hardworking Americans can smell an atheist from a mile away. I wonder if Obama clings to his "religion" because of any economic and class hardship? Or maybe he's praying for God to stop making his wife and pastor be such deplorable loudmouths?

Speaking of which, what is Obama going to do about his horrible wife who spews anti-American profanities so un-judiciously that it would make Teresa Heinz Kerry blush? Hey Michelle - do ring me when your proud of America again. Resident New York Times bitch Maureen Dowd kind of hit the nail on the head about the uncouth and unacceptably sassy Michelle Obama:

"I wince a bit when Michelle Obama chides her husband as a mere mortal — comic routine that rests on the presumption that we see him as a god ... But it may not be smart politics to mock him in a way that turns him from the glam JFK into the mundane Gerald Ford, toasting his own English muffin. If all Senator Obama is peddling is the Camelot mystique, why debunk this mystique?"-Maureen Dowd, New York Times

The Democrats better get their act together, dig their heads out of their asses (no pun intended), and get Michigan and Florida's electoral votes to throw the nomination towards rotund and glorious Hillary Rodham Clinton. America is a wonderful place, and will not be duped by the likes of a Barack Obama secular-progressive atheist who seeks to restructure our marvelous enterprising free market economy into his vulgar brand of multiculturalism/racism and European Socialism. The Democrats are moving towards these sympathies - and they will not win in America unless they find candidates that dismiss their new brand.

Clinton Trounces McCain in Polls:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_divided_democrats;_ylt=AtUCbzYpQ7v1Np1o9oFqngyyFz4D

Downfall of Obama Thanks to Wright:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor

Democrats Polling Gets More Negative:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_divided_democrats;_ylt=AtUCbzYpQ7v1Np1o9oFqngyyFz4D

Should Be Democratic Candidates:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ford_Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh

Since When Did Democrats Have a Monopoly on Cool?

It seems like everytime we enter a new level of schooling, there's always a new chic thing that we are required to do. In elementary school, it was purchasing a sexy new Sonic the Hedgehog lunchbox. In middle school, it was ensuring that part of one's belt was hanging down at least nine inches below the wasteline. In high school, it was having sex and at least pretending that you were doing drugs.

In college, it was becoming a liberal.

Parading around like a hippie, excusing terrible behavior with moral relativism, and spouting out these ridiculous self-righteous platitudes about "supposedly" disadvantaged groups somehow became the cool thing to do upon entering college. New freshmen, oblivious to how to behave or what kind of personality to adopt, somehow decide to become idealist brooding liberals. Oh, and did I mention a requisite clueless fawning over B. Hussein Obama? It must be his drug use, provocation of white guilt, and his anti-"garlic-nosed Italians" pastor that the kids find cool these days. Cause who likes Italians anyway? Take a ride on Alitalia and you'll never want to see another Italian again - trust me.

Anyway, I'm here to say that the liberal monopoly on "cool" can end. How, you ask? Well, by exploiting assets that Republicans inherently have that can be spun into incredibly cool and incredibly sexy forms.

Liberals foster a culture of community and dependency, where stereotypically you have losers in government homes wasting away and feeding off welfare checks, robbing hardworking people who want to buy a jet ski, a BMW, and a sweet ass little condo in Tahoe. Conservatives are champions of economic freedom and independence - the ideal of the hardworking individual rising up and working hard in the marketplace. I believe they call it "Dirty Sexy Money" over at ABC - money is sexy and everybody knows it.

Also, it's just not cool to think of fat ugly wasteful usurping bureaucrats sitting in a bland goverment office robbing wealthy people from sexy Southern California who would rather spend their hard earned money on cool things like Hummers, fake boobs, and tanning salons which we can relish on hip modern shows like The Real Housewives of Orange County. Phew, that was a long sentence. Liberals love their fat bureaucrats that can't be fired despite severe incompetence. They love to waste our money with bloated inefficient government programs that foster dependency and worsen motivation for "disadvantaged" groups to be successful in a modern marketplace.

And we sure as hell all know that conservatives are much more attractive than liberals (in general, and we all know that that drug addicted psychopath Kirsten Dunst is gaunt and ugly; so is her Prius). Why is it that at Berkeley, severe liberals seem to be these gross gaunt complaining smoking tattooed emo chicks and these pathetic skinny odd looking whiny guys who robotically recite regurgitated lines about imperialism and the oppressed? I get bored by these nutcases in our trees. Whining about Iraq was so totally last year. Apparently now it's all about bailing out a bunch of idiots who don't understand the dynamic nature of the real estate market and want others to take responsibility for their impudent decisions.

And as for severely under-educated Hollywood actors glorifying liberalism by spewing these ridiculous inane comments that rival the Berkeley population in their stupidity, they're totally uncool. Also, what credibility does Hollywood have when half of it is in rehab and have marriages that last about as long as Rosie O'Donnell's bowel cycle. Does Kiki Dunst understand complex market theory? I don't think so. Kiki understands that the economy should work in a fashion where we tax rich people so much - to give back to the poor, of course - that the poor become equalized with the rich. Kiki, of course, fails to understand that if you force rich people to live like everybody else, they - um - kind of have no incentive to become rich in the first place. Then, without reward, nobody's rich, we get no innovation, and there's no money to redistribute to the poor because nobody's incentivized to innovate and output.

Younger, flashier, and edgier conservatives like me are parting with the stuffy religious right while still appreciating a slight glaze of moral values; there's nothing more grotesque and unclassy than an unbehaved demoralized liberal in its drug laden habitat. To highlight, the very sexy, rich, etiquette-laden, and edgy Heidi Montag has recently endorsed John McCain. In contrast, uneducated barbarians like Roseanne and Kanye West are endorsing Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama, respectively.

And finally, Republicans kick the bad people's asses (get it done baby) while pussy liberals retreat behind Michael "Double Quarter Pounder" Moore and his silly misinformed glossy selectively edited movies. We are the America "300" - conservatives will not retreat against filthy radical deranged terrorists. We prefer to save those 53 million people and restore their freedoms from Xerxes - oh I mean Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. We are proud, strong, and shining at the top of a hill. And no, we don't need a bunch of weak secular humanists in the UN telling us what to do.

Might I also mention that the anti-military/Iraq film Stop-Loss was an absolute bust at the box office. Apparently a movie that explores defying one's duty to the US Military is - what Democrats? - quite unpopular! Who would have thought that any film that loaded with beefcake guys like Ryan Philippe could do so badly? In The Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and that other anti-American movie with Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal (that apparently no one knows about) have also bombed very heavily at the box office. In contrast, Mel Gibson's The Patriot made about $115M at the box office and his Passion of the Christ made bank upwards of $300M.

And finally, the environment. These smelly "green" hippies, who ironically smoke and pollute the direct environment around them, are totally uncool. They're gross, and no one wants to be around them. The more sophisticated brand name douche of environmental liberalism, Al Gore, is boring and fat (also insane and alarmist). And need I mention the Prius and those who drive it? I think not.

Conservatives are amazing. We are "the party of the rich", we're glossy, we're cool, we have values, we hate hippies, we hate people that hate the US, and we're totally on Team Heidi. Liberals simply can't beat that!

Conditional Support of John McCain; Must Defeat Barack Obama

Conditional Support of McCain

So much to the chagrin of my more conservative friends and acquaintances, I have relucantly decided to support Yon McCain. You'll notice I say "Yon" McCain, because I believe McCain will capture an even larger slice of the crucial Latino vote than President Bush (who I think got about 40-44% in 2004), and will henceforth be called "Yon"; I asked my Aunt to say "John McCain" this weekend and she said "Yon McCain", so I said, hell, I'm going to call him "Yon" McCain from now on. Anyway...

You see, most Latinos frankly don't trust blacks (just ask one of the gangs in Los Angeles) and they don't totally trust women in positions of power (despite the so called "love" for the Clinton machine, and they're aren't many deep South American Latinos in the US), so the only real choice for a good number of Latinos will be the immigration friendly McCain. It's not to say Latinos are bad or to blame for this, as it's an intensely cultural and inherent thing (especially to not see these groups in positions of power), but to not risk offending Latinos, this is what the news media and political analysts are too afraid to say aloud, and what the politicially correct pigeonholers do not want to acknowledge. I'm Latino (okay, half, whatever), so I should know.

To reiterate, I support John McCain not because I have any racial or gender concerns of Obama or Clinton - I simply like his politics better. And I bring up the Latino and politics issue to highlight why I think McCain will get more Latino votes and win the presidency. Conservatives loathe McCain mostly for his immigration policies - it's not because their racist (as they're lambasted by the hard left), but they can't fathom our country not being a sovereign country (like nearly every other country on Earth) and folks with illegal status crowding US hospitals and overloading schools funded with their taxpayer dollars. It has nothing to do with race - if Mexicans looked like Swedes or Gingers, the same people up here would still be pissed.

However, I believe McCain will take measures to fully secure the Southern United States border, but will take a rational (and not necessarily conservative) approach to amnesty that's not quite as liberal as his previous foray that was supported by President Bush. Too many conservatives whine about paths to citizenship and what not, but something reasonable has to be done. And too many liberals are overzealous for open borders and amnesty because they think they'll add to their voting base and exploit Latinos more than they already have. Liberals would turn on minorities so quick if they stopped voting for them - they like to dole out gratuitous handouts to secure loyalty among these groups. Conservatives would give these groups the independence they deserve and would refuse to patronize them, infantilize them, and buy their loyalty as liberals do; it's also imperative to note that most minority groups are extremely socially conservative.

I also believe McCain would do an "okay" job at implimenting conservative economic principles. Firstly, McCain would hopefully as he's said keep the Bush tax cuts permanent, putting money back into the hands of people who willingly spend in all branches of our economy and grow it through entrepreneurship. As much as the concept of low taxes actually bringing in more revenue to the government is so spellbinding for liberals, the leftist associated press admittedly recently that government revenue is at an absolutely all time high (high taxes stifle business, spending, and growth therefore shrinking the economy, and thus the government brings in less revenue); despite the gloriousness of Reaganomics, I'll save that for another blog. Secondly, McCain would hopefully stick to his anti-pork barrel pledges, and unlike President Bush, not be afraid to whip out the veto pen so our taxpayer dollars aren't spent on multi-$100M bridges to nowhere. And if you shrink spending on ridiculous things, you can keep taxes low and shrink the deficits (whose magnitudes are exaggerated, btw). Thirdly, as a Republican, I instinctively think Maverick McCain will tone down the "class-warfare" rhetoric.

His anti-torture and Guantanamo positions aren't too troubling for me, and he'll do a good job in terms of national security and the geo-political arena. As for McCain-Feingold, there's simply no excuse for that.

McCain was not anybody's first choice, but the consequences of not fully backing him and possibly conceding the US to Barack, whose been rated as one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate, are horrifying.

However - the condition - if McCain picks that horrific goon Mike Huckabee of Arkansas to be vice-president, I will refuse to support his campaign at any level as well as during the presidency.

Barack Hussein Obama

B. Obama's record is absolutely troubling, and the nature of his endorsements is terrifying. I will give him credit for a couple more conservative positions (but not conservative enough) on teacher merit pay and healthcare, though. I will also give him credit for being brilliant and "with it". However, the combination of dangerous record and inexperience make him an absolutely unacceptable candidate that must be defeated.

• Endorsed by the dangerous ultra-left and Anti-American "MoveOn.org", which he readily accepted and bestowed praise upon the dangerous group.

• Endorsed by murderer, slanderer, and drunkard Teddy Kennedy (just look up Mary Jo Kopechne on google).
• Refused to say Pledge Of Allegiance as vulgar symbolic gesture.

• Barack Obama's 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics describes him as 87% economically liberal and 12% economically conservative.

• Not open to private social security accounts.

• Opposes vouchers or any kind of school choice, however is fine with a type of choice in which a woman chooses to impale the skull of her fetus.

• Socialized health insurance.

• Opposes estate tax cuts, despite those monies already having been taxed.

• His 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Foreign Policy is 85% liberal, 12% conservative.

• Irresponsible withdrawal from Iraq.

• Drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

• Willing to speak to rogue/terrorist states (criticized by H. Clinton)

• Early opponent of Iraq, before it was questionable, showing a far-left Code Pink view of using military force.

• 100% rating from far-left Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

• Hypocritical association with anti-gay pastors in his "40 Days of Faith and Family".

• Rated "F" by NRA.

• Unacceptable levels of disrespect shown to current Commander and Chief President Bush.

• One of the ten ultra-left Democrats to vote NO for Vote 181 to authorize $120M for the funding of the Iraq War and the troops.

• Ultra-partisan in senate: voted 96% with Democrats.

• Voted against bill to prevent desecration of the American flag.

• Voted NO against extension of the Bush tax-cuts.

• Voted NO on confirmation of brilliant and superbly qualified John Roberts to be Chief Supreme Court Justice.

• Polarizing class and race warfare rhetoric.

I Think Gays Should Be Republicans

I love gay people. That's why I think they should be Republicans.

Gays have "fabulous" taste in clothes. Gays have "spectacular" taste in cars, save for the Mazda Miata. Gays shine at a party with their "fabulous" sense of humor and bubbly personalities. In fact, gays are actually becoming the new straight people - with masculine haircuts and a new focus on buffness, they make their liberal straight counterparts look gay.

But for some odd reason, gays by and large are sucked up in the strange world of whiny liberal secular-progressivism (SP). Democrats have recruited gays into a party that does absolutely nothing for them.

I honestly think that Democrats are secretly more "pro-gay marriage" than Republicans are, but with the Catholics and Hispanics swinging toward their side, Democrats are willing to sell out the gays. So in essence, assuming that the new face of the Republican Party is the relatively socially libertarian Rudolph Giuliani, gays are not going to find anyone in either party that's going to allow them to be pushed into the death trap of marriage where they're likely to get divorced and physically abuse each other - it'll be pretty even on the other gay issues.

Instead of whining about a petty antiquated little piece of paper that gays think is somehow required for them to actually love each other, why don't they focus on policies that boost the quality of their everyday lives and share their values on helping gays throughout the rest of the world. Let me explain:

The War on Terror
It is no secret that liberals are overly sympathetic to radical Middle East governments. Whether it's Saddam that killed hundreds of thousands of people (many his own) or the wildly Islamofascist governments in Iran, Afghanistan, or what not, liberals do not see it pertinent to do anything about these nutcases who stand in the way of democracy and freedom.

Ironically, these same governments and radical fringe groups in the middle east are the ones that claim homosexuality doesn't exist and hang/execute people who participate in homosexual acts (Bill Richardson is one for two on the above). Despite the only complaint about gays by the Republican Party being the signing of a marriage bill, gays still talk about President Bush as being considerably more heinous than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government has executed people committing gay acts, most recently by hanging. If you'll recall, President Bush had a warm and lovely conversation recently with America's most lovable lesbian, Ellen De Generes.

Taxes
So apparently gays have a much higher income than the average straights, especially in a two person gay household vs. two person straight household. Why do they want Democrats and redistributionist liberals taxing the shit out of them so they won't have enough money left over for their big gay cruise to St. Croix or that precious Mazda Miata? Let's face it - gays are by and large self-absorbed, superficial, and money-grubbing...like me. If they understood what Democrats really wanted to do with their hard earned money, they would have a huge fright.

Crimes
Republicans punish criminals and put them away. Democrats want their ridiculous touchy-feely rehabilitation, which as any rational person knows, means they are going to exit jail and orchestrate another gay bashing as they would have otherwise. With so called "hate crimes", or crimes, against gays on the upswing, gays should be concerned about liberals' excessive coddling and defending criminals instead of victims. I certainly wish liberals were as concerned with the four Asian victims of Tookie Williams than they were with that monster himself - perhaps it was a case of affirmative action.