The Final Stretch

With one week to go until Election Day, John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden head down the final stretch of Campaign '08, making their case before an electorate that shows signs of being more fired up this year than any in the recent past.

No doubt the citizens are 'Bush-weary' as they were in 2001 when they were described as having a bad case of 'Clinton fatigue.'

And, with the nation's first African-American chosen as the standard-bearer of one of the 2 major political parties, and with the very first Alaskan governor and the first female to be chosen to serve on the GOP ticket, the excitement generated in this campaign has been one for the history books.

The mainstream media and the Obama campaign have all but proclaimed victory before a single vote as been counted and before most votes have even been cast.

Polls have varied widely.

But most reputable pollsters are admitting that in this final stretch, the numbers show a vastly tightening race.

Only 4 days ago Gallup showed a 7-point gap between McCain and Obama, with Obama gaining 51% support among those surveyed.

As of today, McCain has closed that gap, picking up 5 points in 4 days, and is now within 2 points of Obama--well within the poll's margin of error.

Other reputable pollsters, Rasmussen, Zogby, TIPP, and others also show tightening numbers.

The battleground states, of course, will be key to winning the White House. Polls show Obama ahead in Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but with McCain showing signs of a last-minute surge in at least 2 of those states.

McCain is slightly ahead in Missouri and Ohio, but within the polls' margin of error.

One electoral factor to bear in mind--in the last few days of a campaign, undecided voters have a history of breaking in favor of the underdog. And McCain has been running behind during most of the Summer and Fall.

No Bounce for Obama After Biden Announcement

A quick scan of the various polls reveals no bounce at all for Barack Obama following the announcement of the selection of Joe Biden as his running mate.

Polls indicate that the race for the White House is still in a dead-heat, with John McCain and Barack Obama in a statistical tie.

In fact, many observers note a 'ho-hum' attitude among most voters in response to the addition of Biden to the ticket.

Obama's selection of Biden is, in fact, a curious one. Biden represents Delaware. He brings no significant electoral votes to the table, neither does he help Obama by being a significant influence in one of the all-important 'swing states.'

Further, Biden, as a 36-year veteran of the Senate, seems to belie the Obama message of freshness, newness, hope, and change.

And thus, the question arises once again as to Obama's wisdom in decision-making. What on earth was he thinking?

McCain Has 16-Point Lead in 11 Southern States

A new poll conducted jointly by South Carolina's Winthrop University and ETV, the state's PBS network, shows that John McCain is leading Barack Obama by 16 points in 11 southern states.

GoUpstate.com reports that the poll which was released Thursday night was conducted by a phone survey of 11 states with a sampling of 1100 persons.

If these figures hold through November, Barack Obama will not carry a single southern state, unless he changes tactics and focuses entirely on Florida and Virginia, where he claims he can make inroads.

Nonetheless, even in those two states Obama's chances are dwindling due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is a sharp drop in the candidate's poll numbers among key voter groups, such as white women, senior adults, and blue-color white men.

No Presidential candidate has won the White House without winning the South since 1964.

On the Eve of Super Tuesday

As we stand on the brink of the most significant day in politics, outside of the general election in November, several trends have become clear.

First, John McCain appears to be sailing to the GOP nomination. If the state by state polls are correct, McCain will win big. If he doesn't wrap up the nomination tomorrow, he will certainly be more than well on his way toward winning the required number of delegates to secure the nomination.

Thus, the GOP is in the process of flipping the bird at Reagan conservatives, gun owners, gun dealers and manufacturers, First Amendment stalwarts, and those who believe in the rule of law when it comes to illegal aliens...ALL of the law.

On the Democratic side the picture is murky, but we know that Obama is surging, which could spell big trouble for the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. At this point it appears that there will be no clear winner on Super Tuesday, which means that it may be the Democrats rather than the Republicans who head to a brokered convention in the summer.

All of this, needless to say, holds ominous implications for November. The Republican base, i.e., the conservatives, are disheartened and anything but enthused about the prospects of a McCain ticket. Democrats are as fired up as I have seen them in many, many years.

Thus, my friends, peering into my crystal ball over the next four years I see very dark clouds on the horizon for the United States of America and its liberties. I am not fool-proof in my predictions as most of you know by now. But at present, I simply do not see much to be happy about.

5 Barefaced Liars on the Trail

Candidate Number One speaketh with forked tongue on illegal aliens and immigraton reform.

Candidate Number Two speaketh with forked tongue on Iraq.

Candidate Number Three speaketh with forked tongue on his support of the Second Amendment.

Candidate Number Four speaketh with forked tongue on the same thing as Candidate Number Three.

And Candidate Number Five speaketh with forked tongue on taxes.

Liars, each and every one. Can you guess which is which on this list?

One thing is for sure, Ron Paul is not one of them. To his credit, Paul has told the truth, even if it is distasteful. For example, I am convinced that when Paul says he believes terrorism was created by U.S. mistakes in foreign policy, he fully believes what he is saying, although I thoroughly disagree.

As for the rest of the field of candidates, each have been shown conclusively to have the tendency to say anything to get elected.

The precious 'straight-talking' John McCain claims to have seen the light on illegal aliens, yet he still has no proposal to force illegals to get in the back of the line along with honorable people who want to come here legally. Their 'work history' here in America is a non-issue. They are still illegals who have committed crimes and broken our laws just by being here.

Hillary? ROFL! 'If I knew then what I know now, I would have blah, blah, blah...' She knew all about Iraq because of her husband's assessment that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Barack Obama claims he supports the Second Amendment. Yeah, what part? Apparently he supports that invisible part of the Amendment that talks about 'hunters' rights,' because this is all he mentioned with connection to gun rights. In fact, his long history in the Illinois legislature shows he supports a nationwide, total ban on handguns.

Mitt has been a bit better than Obama on the matter of the Second Amendment, yet Mitt has always portrayed a rather skittish attitude toward 'assault weapons' and handguns. There is no doubt he has supported gun control of some kind his entire political career.

And as for Huckabee, it's too bad he is a big government Republican who raised Arkansas taxes, although he claims he lowered them. He is great on gun rights, abortion, and healthcare, but absolutely dangerously naive when it comes to foreign policy, Iraq, and the U.S. military.

What a motley crew of C-grade purveyors of mediocrity!

What Now?

My belief that Fred Thompson would win South Carolina was more than just wishful thinking or baseless optimism. I actually believe that his views more closely reflect the views of the citizens in this state than any other candidate.

Yet for some reason or another, South Carolina Republicans decided to go with McCain, with Huckabee coming in a close 2nd.

The thing that makes this fact very puzzling to say the least is that John McCain is the very man who took a shellacking from GOP activists in the state for his support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Several GOP county delegations in the state were condemning Senator Lindsey Graham's support of the McCain plan to the extent that they suggested recalling the Senator and conducting another election.

A very telling poll tells the story. Those who voted for both McCain and Huckabee said they did so 'because they believed the candidate would do something about illegal aliens.'

Either these particular voters are showing their vast ignorance, or else both McCain and the Huckster hoodwinked South Carolina Republicans into believing they were strong on doing something about the immigration problem.

In actuality, Fred Thompson is the only one in the top three in S.C. who actually advocated for strong leadership on the issue long before McCain and Huckabee had a sudden 'change of heart.'

But, after all, the Huckster is a Baptist preacher. Nobody would expect him to lie. And McCain is a war hero. Everyone knows war heroes do no wrong.

Nonetheless the voters have made their choice and this is what we are facing.

The question becomes, what now? Do we fold up the tents and go home? Do we sit out election day? Do we consider a vote for a 3rd party candidate?

First of all, Fred is not out of it. I know that his advisers, including many of his supporters, are encouraging him to carry on until Super Tuesday. This would be my advice to the Senator as well.

Second, as for me, I think it is a big mistake to fold up the tents and go home or to sit out election day. It's not over until it's over, as Yogi would say. And, in the event of a brokered convention, Republicans could well turn to Fred Thompson to reunite the Party behind solid Reagan principles.

In addition, some have suggested that should McCain win the nomination, he could well ask Thompson to be his running mate to appeal to the GOP base and heal rifts within the Party. Thompson and McCain go back a long way in the Senate, and the two are good friends despite their policy differences.

Third, I will in no way, shape, form, or fashion vote for or advocate voting for a third party candidate, unless that person shows enough solid support in the electorate to win and not just be a spoiler for the Republican candidate.

So far I have not seen anyone, not even Ron Paul, who has that kind of support.

Thus, I will support the GOP candidate because, frankly, ANYBODY is better than Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. And that includes Giuliani, Romney, and McCain.

When it comes to beating outright Socialists who truly wish to rob citizens of liberties, including their gun rights, I truly do not care about some of Romney's less than admirable qualities as Governor of Massachusetts. He is for tax cuts, he is pro-business and pro-free enterprise, he supports smaller more efficient government.

Both Rudy and McCain share those views as well.

I can handle that any time, any day of the week over a European-styled Socialist who wants to give us socialized medicine which hangs like an Albatross around the necks of British citizens or who believe that government is the entity to cure all of society's ills.

Hillary, Obama, and Edwards each share these views which are absolutely deplorable and are a threat to our Republic.

With a Democratic-controlled Congress there will be nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping these tyrants from unleashing their voodoo magical cures on society by robbing the citizens of more of their hard-earned income.

At least with a Republican President there will be the all-important veto.

Finally, let's not forget Court appointments. Let's face it, my friends, with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards in the White House, along with a Democratic Congress, you can kiss goodbye getting Judges and Justices who believe in the Second Amendment as an individual right, Federalism, or any of the views propounded by the Founders of the Republic.

Someone needs to be sitting in the Oval Office who will stop the assault on individual liberties as perpetrated by the imbeciles who are now running Congress.

Think about these things long and hard, my friends. If you think that allowing a Democrat to be elected to the Oval Office while Democrats control Congress is a good thing for individual liberty and the Constitution, then I am afraid all of my appeals to good sense and reason will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

As Fred said in his speech in South Carolina Saturday night, 'Keep on fighting! Keep on fighting!'

Wyoming Republican Caucuses Today

Always committed to telling you what the mainstream media won't, we at The Liberty Sphere will keep you informed about the headlines beneath the headlines, and the information buried by supposedly 'more important endeavors.'

The Wyoming Republican Caucuses take place today, Saturday, Jan. 5, 2008.

If you had only been paying attention to the mainstream media or the Press, you would have never heard about this event.

Very few delegate votes are at stake in this event, yet Wyoming is a vital part of the political process, given that it is in the middle of one of the strongest Republican areas in the nation.

Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Mitt Romney have campaigned in the state, while the rest have placed Wyoming on the back burner. Rumor has it that Mitt Romney will do very well here, but there is no solid evidence to back that up.

The reason is that no polling data has been gathered. Perhaps the various polling organizations do not consider Wyoming to be important enough to invest the time and money.

Thus, the only count to be taken will be the actual vote itself, and Wyoming's preferred candidate will be chosen by the end of the process.

As always, the Liberty Sphere will keep you informed of the results of the Wyoming Republican Caucuses as soon as they are made available.

Instant Analysis: The Iowa Caucuses

With over 99% of the Democratic vote counted and with nearly 90% of the Republican vote tallied, the Iowa Caucuses have once again shown us the independence and grit of Iowa voters.

Defying all predictions (except for the last minute prognostications late last night), Iowans have picked Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee as their preferred standard-bearers for the Democrats and the Republicans.

Although the Iowa Caucuses are very strategic in American politics due to their uniqueness and thoroughly grassroots process, the system does have its weaknesses. That weakness shows itself in the winners.

Only the most activist of voters participate in the Iowa Caucuses, which require a commitment of time and energy. On the Democratic side this means that Leftist activists by and large choose the preferred candidate. On the Republican side this means that rightwing evangelicals carry the most weight in picking their preferred candidate.

Thus, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee emerge as winners.

While America needs the unique grassroots process as epitomized by the Iowa Caucuses, their importance in influencing who will eventually be the Parties' nominees is highly questionable. So many candidates have won Iowa only to go on to defeat.

It is highly unlikely that Mike Huckabee will be elected President of the United States. And this is why Republicans will eventually reject him.

The same can be said for Barack Obama. He is a first-term U.S. Senator who has ZERO experience in so many areas that are vital to America's well-being. This is particularly true with regard to foreign policy and terrorism.

In fact, neither Huckabee nor Obama have the necessary experience to deal with situations such as Pakistan.

Obama may well win in New Hampshire and Michigan. But by the time the Florida primary rolls around we can expect Democratic voters to have settled down from their 'star-worship' and consider the cold, hard facts that in a dangerous world such as ours it is sheer folly to select a novice as your Party's nominee.

As for Huckabee, voters in New Hampshire already know the folly of choosing a novice. He will not do well in N.H., neither will he gain much traction in Michigan. Huckabee's best hope is to make a good showing in South Carolina, which is still very much in flux.

Both Obama and Huckabee have made 'change' the rallying cry of their respective campaigns. When disgruntled voters throw a tantrum, they usually turn to such candidates, even if they possess very little knowledge or experience in the area of world politics.

But Iowa is different--always has been. The entire electorate nationwide is not quite ready to throw a tantrum, at least not to the degree that they are willing to throw all rationality out the window. For this reason we can look for McCain to win New Hampshire.

It will take the Democrats a bit longer to come to their senses. We predict they will have done so by the time the Florida primary rolls around.

Ready To Rumble: Iowa Caucuses Today

Alright, alright, alright. We're ready to rumble. The Iowa Caucuses are today, kicking off the 2008 Presidential race in earnest.

For us here at The Liberty Sphere, this is our area of expertise, our forte. And we are already excited about the drama of this race in both Parties.

First of all, our sources in Iowa tell us that we can safely throw out the window all we think we know concerning the polling numbers in both Parties. A trusted veteran GOP operative in Iowa tells us that never in the history of the Caucuses has a race been as wide-open as this one.

Never in his memory has a race been so tight, and this includes the Republicans as well as Democrats.

Within the GOP there are now four candidates that are within easy striking distance of first place: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Fred Thompson.

On the Democratic side the race fluctuates between three top candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.

In addition, the thing for which Iowans are known when it comes to politics--changing their minds and deciding on a candidate at the last minute--is even more a factor this year than any before. A significant number of primary voters in the state say that they could easily change their minds. Some citizens even state that they have already changed their minds after they declared support for a candidate in the various polls that have been conducted in the last few days.

The process is expected to go on well into the night, particularly for the Democrats whose procedure is more complicated than the Republicans.' The Republican procedure is a straight straw poll. The Democrats, however, wheel and deal, negotiate, and vote at least twice before a winner is decided.

Nowhere in the country is the political process any more grassroots than in Iowa. Iowans commit much more than just a vote at their caucuses. They commit a significant amount of time to come out to the polling places to engage the candidates and their supporters.

This is the reason the Iowa Caucuses are considered to be so vitally important. This is the American heartland. This is the grassroots in the heartland. This is as close to the average voter as it gets.

And this is why Iowa will always be central to the American political process--as long as they keep their system close to the people.

So, my friends, it's time to rock and roll.

A Dream Scenario: Brokered Conventions

Political junkies like me who are old enough to remember the drama of political conventions have secretly held onto a dream, a wish, for 2008--brokered conventions.

I have become convinced that the absolute best thing that could happen for American politics in 2008 is for the choice as to who will head the Republican and Democratic tickets to be made at the respective political conventions this coming summer.

For the past 15 to 20 years, political conventions have become all but obsolete, with the choices for the two Parties being made by the primary system in the various states long before the time for the conventions.

Thus, the conventions have become nothing more than a coronation, a showcase, a week-long political commercial for the already-agreed-upon candidate.

The drama is entirely gone.

This year may change all of that. Despite Hillary Clinton's desire for the Democratic National Convention of '08 to be her coronation, that is highly unlikely given her strong opposition from Barack Obama and John Edwards.

In like manner, as Rudy Giuliani's star fades and Mike Huckabee rides a tide of near-cult-worship, GOP conservatives are left unimpressed. They want to vote for Fred Thompson, but somehow the highly unrealistic expectations placed upon Thompson have tended to hurt him severely.

They may yet decide that he is their man in the long run.

But this decision may well not happen until the GOP National Convention in the summer. Fred appears likely to win South Carolina. He could win in Iowa, but at present it appears either Huckabee or Romney will win, although male voters in Iowa have recently turned away from Huckabee. In New Hampshire, John McCain appears to be surging to the head of the pack.

This could well set up a trend that will continue right up to the Convention--the primaries will be split between 3 or 4 candidates, perhaps even 5, meaning that the decision will have to be made at the Convention.

My, what drama. I love it.

If this scenario is played out, it will mean that deals will have to be made. Compromises will have to be negotiated. Behind-the-scenes power plays will be the order of the day, just like in the old days.

I am reminded of the high drama of the 1980 Republican National Convention, when nominee Ronald Reagan offered the job of running-mate to former President Gerald R. Ford as a means of healing a rift in the GOP.

At first Ford took the offer very seriously. It became the talk of the nation.

And then Ford dropped a bombshell. He told Reagan that he would accept only if Reagan would agree to make Ford a 'co-President,' sharing the duties of the office together.

Wow. The Ford ultimatum dominated the news for days. It was Walter Cronkite's dream.

Then Reagan made the only decision he could. He turned down Ford's offer for the sake of the Constitution and common sense. George H.W. Bush was chosen as his running-mate, and the two went on to beat Jimmy Carter in a landslide.

With the great fluidity of the electorate leading up to the primaries this year, and as no clear front runner is apparent, perhaps this is the year that the political convention will return to politics as a relevant and needed entity.

It Was Just a Joke, Folks

Never attempting to hide my admiration for former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, it has become necessary to give my take on the much bally-hoo'd off-the-cuff joke the GOP candidate made during a Fox News interview.

Thompson quipped to Fox correspondent Carl Cameron something to the effect of, 'And I'll probably never be President.'

Cameron immediately jumped on the quip, blowing it out of proportion, and frankly, misinterpreting it. Now the entire mainstream media is in on the feeding frenzy, claiming that Thompson is 'lazy' and 'doesn't have the fire in the belly' to be President, or even more ridiculous, taking an off-the-record joke as an indication that the candidate does not truly believe that he can attain the Presidency.

First, those who know Senator Thompson know that such self-effacing humor is one of his trademarks. The man simply doesn't take himself too seriously, much like another former Hollywood actor who later became President, Ronald Reagan.

Thompson is laid-back. This is his personality. It has always been and always will be. So what?

Second, so what that he does not campaign in the traditional way? I think his style is entirely refreshing. He isn't bound to anyone's prescribed methods of campaigning. In fact, there is NO 'prescribed method.'

Third, although Thompson is quick to remind voters that he is no Ronald Reagan, there is a certain similarity in one key area. Thompson does not HAVE to be President. Neither did Reagan. It was not like some sort of lifelong, 'to-die-for' goal that had to be reached or else life is meaningless.

To the contrary, both Thompson and Reagan had successful careers in other fields of endeavor, but politics, the future of the Republic, and the cry of the voters, lured them into doing something reluctantly--start a campaign.

It is no sin to be a reluctant candidate. In fact, this is much to be preferred over career politicians who never made a nickel of their own money except from the public treasury.

Reagan did not particularly want to be President; he felt he was compelled to be by circumstances outside his own personal preferences. He probably saved the Republic from becoming simply another has-been European-styled Socialist nation that was a mere shadow of its former self.

The result was that America grew even greater and stronger under the Reagan Presidency.

Remember that in the early stages of the 1980 campaign, Reagan was a clear underdog. Polls showed him losing to George H.W. Bush in the GOP race, and if nominated losing to Jimmy Carter in the general election.

Reagan lost both the Iowa and New Hampshire GOP primaries.

But then the campaign turned southward, and Reagan began to trounce Bush. As the general election drew near, Carter and Reagan appeared to be in a dead-heat according to the major polls. Reagan was denounced and ridiculed as a second-rate, B-grade movie actor who was prone to 'misspeak' on foreign policy issues. In actuality, he was only telling the truth, but the truth was appalling to the 'detente'-oriented forces that pushed appeasement with the Communists.

Thus, Reagan was seen as a loose cannon who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

But when the election results came rolling in, a very different picture became clear than what was being presented in the mainstream media. Reagan was beating Carter in a landslide.

Back to Fred Thompson. It is a precarious exercise to trust mainstream pundits, even those on Fox. Most if not all of the pundits that appear on Fox have a clear agenda, and it is Rudy.

Thompson's laid-back, deliberative style gives him more gravitas, in my opinion. He is dead-serious about the issues he discusses, and thus, when speaking about the policies that guide the future of the Republic, Thompson exhibits no frivolity, canned speeches, or shameless juvenile cheerleading for himself. He is a serious candidate for a serious time in our history.

But he also has a sense of humor.

As we used to say during the Reagan years, 'Let Reagan be Reagan,' perhaps it is time to simply 'let Thompson be Thompson.'

Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents

People who believe in liberty, the freedom of the individual, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights should swear off of the Democratic Party completely.

The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.

And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.

Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.

The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.

Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.

For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.

This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.

And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.

The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.

I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.

She's Only Trying to Win an Election

It just occurred to me that the reason Hillary Clinton has gradually sharpened her answer in favor of driver's licenses for illegal aliens is that she is only trying to win an election. It's just politics, ya know?

Hillary got into a truckload of doo-doo the other night during the Democratic debate when she appeared to give two opposite answers to the same question.

Tim Russert asked Hillary about illegal alien driver's licenses, and Hillary never really answered the question directly but stated she was against such programs but thought that the program proposed by the New York Governor had merit.

Oh, and by the way, the New York Governor is proposing driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

Hillary's opponents jumped on that non-answer as an example of flip-flopping in one single answer to a question.

In the days that have followed, however, Hillary, not surprisingly, has gradually, day by day, grown more definite in her support of driver's licenses for illegals. And the reason, for course, is not far to find. She is merely trying to win an election, and Democrats have a history over the past 25 years of appealing to persons outside the country to immigrate to the U.S., mainly due to the fact that the particular ones who have placed the nation under siege have come here for the freebies that Democrats historically can't wait to hand out.

With such dubious initiatives, voter fraud has skyrocketed. Husband Bill made it very easy for illegal aliens to vote with his no-I.D.-required driver's license voter registration initiative during the 1990s.

The trick certainly worked for him. Now it appears Hillary is taking a page from Hubby's playbook.

Let's cut to the chase. The bottom line? Democrats use these kinds of tricks to get votes, even from illegal aliens. Having a driver's license only makes it easier for an illegal to engage in voter fraud.

And with the overwhelming majority of Americans enraged by these antics of their elected officials with regard to illegal aliens, the only credible reason Hillary would support such a plan is to get votes from the 'non-traditional voters.'

I see a great backlash a-comin', however.

Little Chucky Schumer Proclaims End of Reagan Era

One of the most extremist Leftwing nutcases in the U.S. Senate, Little Chucky Schumer, D-NY, has proclaimed the 'end of the Reagan era.'

Little Chucky was beside himself with glee as he looked forward to the Democrats' prospects for claiming the White House and adding to their majority in Congress.

Stating that the values that drove the Reagan era no longer resonate with most Americans, Little Chucky was certain that his Party would sweep into the White House in 2008 and build a veto-proof majority in the Congress.

This would mean that Hillary or Obama or whoever would have a complete free pass from the Congress to do whatever they wanted to do...a nightmarish prospect for those who value liberty.

Here is a message for Little Chucky: if you think that the concepts of Reagan do not resonate with the majority of Americans anymore, then that means the ideas of liberty as espoused by Jefferson, Franklin, Henry, Washington, Madison, Mason, and Hamilton no longer resonate with them as well. Hell, the Constitution itself must not 'resonate' with the majority of Americans.

If this is the case, Little Chucky, which I highly doubt, then this means we have lost the country and the neo-Commies like yourself are succeeding in running the country into the ground. Nevermind that you have basically bought off their support with your giveaway programs and entitlements, even to illegal aliens.

After all, the ends justify the means, don't they, Little Chucky. If the end result of all of this is a Brave New World where government has ultimate power and where the individual has none, then I suppose all of your programs designed to buy votes are worth it, in your convoluted little mind.

Believe me, Little Chucky, if what you are saying is true, and the worst-case scenario happens in 2008, you are going to be confronted with the worst uprising of average citizens in the heartland that this nation has seen since the American Revolution.

We are not going to sit idly by and let your forces of anti-freedom run rough-shod over all of the liberties for which our forefathers fought and died, and which patriots such as Ronald Reagan so eloquently articulated.

For your information, Little Chucky, there are millions of us out here who will NEVER allow the Reagan era to end, and more and more are being added to our ranks each day. So, you can take your pantie-waist predictions and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

A Work in Progress: Updated GOP Assessment

With slightly over three months to go until the crucial GOP primary season begins, we have noted some changing trends that have led to an update in our assessment of the various candidates' chances at gaining the nomination for President.

First, it is important to consider the two wild-card variables that have changed the complexion of the race.

Fred Thompson seemed to come out of nowhere in the Spring to announce on Fox News that he was considering a run for the White House. Thompson finally entered the race in September with a big bounce in the national polls.

But as Mike McCarville points out at The McCarville Report, Thompson's bounce seems to be over. His poll numbers have settled to slightly above that of Rudy Giuliani; still on top but sliding a bit.

The question is, has Fred been able to live up to the hype? A shift downward in poll numbers is common when a candidate experiences a sudden, sharp hike. Thus, the slightly lower poll numbers for Thompson may indicate nothing.

Yet media reports from around the country have tended to give Thompson mixed reviews. Many of these were unwarranted and unnecessary, such as the reporter who painted a highly negative picture of the candidate because he perspired profusely and gave out of breath while campaigning outdoors in the searing heat of central Florida.

Such reports are simply not helpful and tend to tell us more about the bias of the reporter rather than the quality of the candidate.

Other reports have given Thompson rave reviews, such as when he exclaimed before a crowd last week, 'My wife will make a much better First Lady than Bill Clinton.' The crowd roared with laughter. And this is not to mention the fact that Thompson has been picking up the support of voters from Florida, to Iowa, to New Hampshire by visiting gun shops, county fairs, and community festivals, and engaging in simple, straight talk about the issues.

Second Amendment supporters have liked what they've heard, and Thompson has stayed on message even in the face of tough questions about gun rights.

We still believe that Thompson is the man to beat, IF conservative GOP voters can get over the fact that he is not Reagan. There will never be another Reagan, and it is unfair to expect Thompson to be anyone but Thompson.

The big question that looms over the Thompson campaign is, has his initial bounce lost so much of its luster that his campaign is beginning to run out of steam? I doubt it, but apparently Newt Gingrich seems to think so.

And this brings us to the second wild-card in this race, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Gingrich had stated prior to Thompson's announcement that he would enter the race only if he detected a faltering Fred Thompson.

Gingrich told reporters last week that he would run if he had 30 million bucks.

Does this mean he sees Thompson running out of steam? Or was this his plan all along?

As we have stated many times before on The Liberty Sphere, while Gingrich has many attractive ideas as a candidate, we fear his negatives among the general populace. His negatives in the polls rival that of Hillary Clinton, and frankly, I have reason to doubt his ability to beat her in the general election.

In spite of the fact that Gingrich is known as a conservative on most issues, he nonetheless supported measures in the House that ran counter to the right to keep and bear arms. Gun Owners of America, for example, gave Gingrich a grade of 'D' on gun rights, while Thompson had a grade of 'B.'

If Gingrich enters the race I see a needless split of the conservative GOP vote between him and Thompson. He is better off staying put and forgetting about running.

Second, what about the rest of the field of candidates?

Mike Huckabee has made some inroads. He is humorous, articulate, likable, energetic. Yet at this point we feel he would make a better choice as a running mate than as the GOP standard-bearer.

Tom Tancredo is another good option for a running mate, but at this point we do not see a chance for his gaining the nomination.

Duncan Hunter was always our first choice as a candidate. He is consistent, solid, focused, articulate, and probably knows his way around Washington better than anyone. Yet his campaign never got off the ground, we are sad to say. This is truly America's loss.

Ron Paul is certainly always an option. While his poll numbers have remained fairly consistent, he could well emerge as a force with which to contend if the others fail to garner widespread support. He would certainly bring to the GOP table a large segment of the population that opposes the War but that also supports the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Giuliani and McCain are problematic as always. If we had to choose between the two, it would be McCain, but only because he is a genuine American war hero. And, despite what some conservatives claim, either one would be MUCH better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

That leaves Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. Romney is unlikely to win no matter how much of his own money he spends on the campaign. He has simply waffled too much on too many issues. And as for Brownback, for all intents and purposes his campaign is over. 2008 is not his year.

Thus, the race for the GOP nomination is still wide-open for four announced candidates--Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich can be added to this list if he announces.

Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and even Duncan Hunter would be excellent choices for the GOP running mate, with the odds tipping toward Huckabee due to his 'rising star' status in the Party and his colorful stump speeches. Huckabee would help the GOP Presidential nominee more than any of the rest, in our opinion.

As we approach the primary season in just over three short months, it is important to bear in mind that in looking over this field of candidates, ANY of the ones named above would be preferable to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Both have stated positions against the Second Amendment, free speech, American free enterprise, and our Constitutional Republic.

Evan Bayh Throws Down Gauntlet on '08 Election

U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, threw down the gauntlet on the 2008 Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional elections Sunday by stating that 'this will be a referendum on the Iraq War.'

The Senator's brief statement could well sum up the campaign strategy of the Democratic Party in 2008.

Sensing that Americans have assessed the failures of the Democratic Congress in fulfilling campaign promises in 2006, i.e., the shameless pork barrel spending and the failure to do something about earmarks, the corruption and scandal revolving around key Democratic members of Congress, and the failure of Democrats to unite on the subject of Iraq, apparently the Democrats have decided that the only way they can win is to run once again on the weaknesses of the Bush war plan in Iraq.

In describing the campaign strategy envisioned by the Democrats, Mr. Bayh stated that 'Americans want a change of direction and strategy in Iraq, and they sense that if they vote for Republicans they will be voting to continue the course set by President Bush.'

The thing that Mr. Bayh is describing is essentially a replay of the 2006 election strategy employed by the Democrats. They made the 2006 Congressional and Senatorial elections a referendum on the Iraq War, and they won.

They are hoping that lightening will strike twice in the same place.

It is essential, however, to consider one key variable. Despite the Democrats' insistence that the 2006 elections were all about the Iraq War, the 2006 elections were not all about the Iraq War.

The explanation that Republicans lost Congress due to the Iraq War is a rather simplistic one. In actuality, they lost because of several high-level scandals, the last of which occurred just weeks before the election, and because of the failure of Republicans to be real Republicans.

Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley hurt Republicans badly. And the voters decided that Republicans needed to be punished at the polls. This time, however, the Democrats are sorely mistaken if they think the voters will be any kinder to them in light of their own scandals, which are many. Norman Hsu waits in the wings to wreak havoc on any number of key Democrats, and he is only the tip of the iceberg.

Further, the Republican controlled Congress of 2004-06 dug its own grave by refusing to address out-of-control spending, which ran up huge budget deficits. Traditionally Republicans have insisted on balanced budgets and controlled government spending.

The fact that Republicans failed to be real Republicans cost them at the polls. As Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee states, 'Because of the fact that we did not deliver on our promises, the American people fired us.'

It is already abundantly clear that the Democratic Congress has failed to deliver on its promises. Can they really expect the American people to be any kinder to them than they were to Republicans in 2006?

These are key issues that could well tip the scales in favor of Republicans in 2008.

But the road is fraught with danger at every turn. The Iraq War will be a major issue for good or ill. Republicans cannot win by merely talking about the successes we have had, and it is abundantly clear that we have had many successes. And yes, we love our troops, and they have performed magnificently. However, we must go far beyond that.

Any Republican strategy for victory must acknowledge the failures of the Bush administration in conducting this war from 2002 until the summer of 2007. The surge has worked, but the things we were doing prior to 2007 were a recipe for disaster.

Further, a Republican strategy for victory must include a clearly stated objective with a clearly stated step-by-step plan to win this thing outright, and then gradually get the troops out.

More than likely, a winning Democratic strategy will involve the very same thing, though they would be loathe to admit it. And thus, the Republican and Democratic strategies will be more or less the same, with the expected differences in semantics.

The bottom line? The Republicans can win. And the odds are much more in their favor than Newt Gingrich's prediction of 80-20 odds in favor of the Democrats.

'08 Nominees Chosen by Thanksgiving?

In a display that gives one reason to wonder if Party leaders in the various states have taken leave of their senses, the South Carolina Republican Party announced on Thursday that it will move up its GOP primary to Jan. 19.

This action will set into motion yet another chain of events that will result in the move by other states to schedule their primaries earlier.

New Hampshire will surely be the first to make the move. By state law their primary must be the first in the nation, meaning that the New Hampshire date will more than likely be set for Jan. 12.

Iowa, however, is bound and determined to protect its status for having the very first shot at voting by scheduling their time-honored tradition of holding caucuses before the New Hampshire primary, meaning that in all likelihood the Iowa caucuses will be scheduled in December.

We have already been through this before, resulting in a ridiculously early round of caucuses and primaries--the earliest in U.S. history. The question becomes, will the other primary states follow suit and move up their dates, thus prompting South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa to move up their dates even further?

If that happens, it is entirely possible that the nominees for both Parties could be chosen by Thanksgiving.

Far-fetched, you say? Well, who would have thought we be looking at having the Iowa caucuses in December?

In case you are wondering who is to blame for this blatant game of oneupmanship, look no further than the state of Florida. Defying Republican and Democratic National Committee rules that forbid state primaries before Feb. 5, Florida Republicans and Democrats decided to move their primary to Jan. 29.

The penalty for defying the rules is that the RNC and the DNC withhold half of the delegates of the offending states to the Party Conventions, meaning that those states' voting power at the Conventions is greatly diminished.

These states, however, believe that whoever is their Party's nominee will take over the national committees before the Party Conventions, which means that the rules will not be enforced.

Thus, yet another piece of the drama, credibility, and necessity of the Party Conventions is nullified.

And in the end the Parties lose, the candidates lose, and America loses.

To prevent the present undesirable state of affairs in which voters are already growing weary of the process, the national committees of the two Parties should immediately enforce the rules rather than wait until the Conventions. The penalties for moving up a primary to a ridiculously early date should be immediate and devastating.

And it should not be dependent on who is in control of the committee at any given moment in time.

Perhaps the DNC and the RNC should inform the various states that NONE of their delegates will be seated at the Conventions unless they adhere to the Feb. 5 requirement.

Then we could all watch at how quickly the various states decide to move their primaries to later rather than earlier dates.

Part of the allure of American politics is the drama inherent in the process. Through the years we have just about removed all of that drama, and the voters are yawning and going back to sleep.

Just what, exactly, are the candidates and the voters going to do if everything has been decided by Christmas? This will mean we will have to wait another eleven months for the general election. Such a situation will be ripe for even more trivializing of the political process by the tabloid-driven mainstream media.

It simply does not take eleven months to discuss and debate the issues related to a national election. Many have suggested that the present practice of having one or two debates by the candidates of the two major Parties is not enough, and that a series of debates will be much better.

But even that is a far cry from being forced to endure nearly a year of campaigning.

What do you talk about when you run out of things to talk about?

Nothing of any importance, that's for sure. And this is why I maintain that the stage is being set for tabloid journalism to have a field-day during the 2008 election cycle.