A Republican who speaks the truth

Finally, a Republican who speaks the truth about Republican spending.
Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) was interviewed on MSNBC the other day and revealed what no Republican office holder in Washington today dares to say:

"The biggest spending president in the history of the U.S.? The answer is George W. Bush not President Obama. Never vetoed a single bill, spending bill for six and a half years. And then the Republicans sit there and say, yeah, but this guy is worse than he is three to one."

Thank you, Senator Simpson, for speaking the truth.

I thought of Sen. Simpson when I listened to Republicans criticize President Obama the other day for spending $600 million so far in support of the Libyan rebels. This from a party that never said a word, sat on their tails, while Bush 43 was spending $10 billion A MONTH on his and Dick Cheney's Great Persian Adventure!

Throw a Shoe!

First it was the right-wingers who got so upset when they heard President Obama was about to deliver a speech to their children on the first day of school. They warned of a brainwashing experience…and they wouldn’t let it go.

Then it was the left-wingers who really got riled when that crazy Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted, “You lie!,” at President Obama during his speech to the joint session of Congress…and they wouldn’t let it go.

What’s the matter with people? Can’t we cool it just a little bit. We’re about to get this thing completely off the rails. Are there any grown-ups in the room?

I like the idea of throwing shoes at the person we disagree with and letting it go at that. It’s far more civil and certainly makes the point clearly and unambiguously.

Who of us didn’t smile as we watched the Iraqi reporter throw both of his shoes at GW Bush last year in disgust. That said it all, didn’t it?

How much better would it be – and how quickly the issue resolved – if we all just threw a shoe – two shoes if we felt strongly – at the person making the statement we didn’t like.

For example, teachers could throw worn out shoes with a big hole in each sole at TV’s Glenn Beck for trying to convince us President Obama was trying to brainwash our kids. Most of his opinions have holes clean through them, don't they?

South Carolina reporters could throw a high heeled shoe at Governor Sanford the next time he brings up his Argentina mistress.

When former VP Dick Cheney brings up how great everything was during the Bush/Cheney administration, reporters could throw a pair of rubber galoshes at him.

Even Congressman Joe Wilson could have thrown one of his Gucci loafers at Obama if he really thought the President was misleading America on health care reform. Wilson wouldn’t have hit him because Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia would have jumped up, caught them, and walked out with them so he could compare expensive loafers with the health insurance industry lobbyists waiting in the hall.

Don’t you think we should cool off this altogether too hot attempt at public discourse today?

Just throw a shoe!

One Great Mulligan

In this new century, let’s just say we got off to a bad start and start over.

George Bush made mistakes. He made so many that surely we are owed a barrel of mulligans, but maybe we could lump the entire eight years into a single bag, titled, “One Great Mulligan,” and start over.

To sum up the mulligan we seek: Bush weakened the American presidency with his ineptness, he weakened our economy with his profligate spending and his laissez-faire attitude toward financial markets, he undermined our Constitution with each step he took to trample our rights protected so carefully in the Constitution’s hallowed pages, and he threatened our future by creating new enemies abroad with his reckless and ill conceived foreign policies.

But I don’t want to talk about Bush 43 anymore.

I just want a mulligan.

I just want to start over.

Can’t we acknowledge that a new era does not always begin chronologically but sometimes begins metaphorically – at least as humans track time? If we are allowed “One Great Mulligan,” let’s gratefully take it, tell the world “Our long national nightmare is over,” and begin anew.

As our new President said yesterday, "The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."

Ahhhhh… thank you for the mulligan. Let the new century begin.

Change? You want change?

Every day, I hear from friends who say something along these lines: So far, I honestly have to say I don't see as much change as retreading in the Obama cabinet selections. (Clinton, Richardson, Daschle, etc.)

I tell them all, "The change is before you; open your eyes."

Look no farther than Barack Obama. The "change" is the judgment, integrity, intellect, and instinct required to surround himself with the best brains in the business.

Yes, Obama could go down to Main Street and pick up Joe Jones, Sam Barley, and Dick Frick -- that would be change, and the media would say, "Wow, he really meant it, we certainly have change." And 15 minutes later, the media would say, "But will this change work? Are we sure we trust this change? What do we know about these selections? Shouldn't Obama have selected men and women of substance, and ability, and experience to help him affect the change he talked about?"

I find it incredible that reasonable people aren't telling the talking heads to sit back and give the man a break ...and a chance to do the job we elected him to do. He has a mountain to climb, and he is hard at it. In fact, he hasn't taken one day off since the election. He is the de facto President because Bush 43 is NOT. Obama has been forced already to deal with a range of national security issues, an economic meltdown with international repercussions, and a criminal in Illinois attempting to sell his Senate seat. Good grief!

So, I say to you: sit tight. January 20 is still 39 days off! He is not even on the payroll yet! And by the way, 79% of the American people approve of the way he is handling his transition so far.

You want change? You got it already...and you are going to get a lot more!!

Thoughts about change

The talking heads are talking again and they’re saying Obama is no different from any other politician who ever came to Washington touting “change” but doesn't bring any. They cite as evidence his pick of so many old Washington hands for his staff and Cabinet posts. How else do they propose he effect change? He needs people who know how to get things done in Washington. He will counsel with them, and work with them, and through them he will lead the country in a new direction. HE IS THE CHANGE. Through him will change occur.

Bush’s presidency has been like a festering sore. Yes, we want to get rid of it, but if we keep picking at it, it will never heal. Obama is your mother saying, “Stop picking at the scab, and let it heal.” To the talking heads, I say, “Let the Office of President heal, give Barack Obama a chance.” Got that?

OK, and now NPR voices are complaining that Obama is not choosing NPR for his weekly radio address. “If radio was good enough for FDR, it is good enough for Obama,” they say. Good grief. This is not 1932! Obama is using his transition website, change.gov, for his weekly video message and is posting the same message on YouTube.com. Hello, NPR. Communications technology has changed and Obama is simply tapping state of the art tools to stay in touch with the American people. If YouTube is good enough for you and me, why not a President Obama?

Barack Obama has already changed many things. He permanently changed the way presidential campaigns raise money when he raised $500 million dollars from 6.5 million donors. No one has ever done that. Others will try in the future, and that will be fine. The Obama model will likely be the future “public financing” of campaigns that stimulates voter participation throughout the entire process. He has also demonstrated that a 50-state strategy not only works politically but is also more in keeping with our founding democratic principles, that is, solicitation of the broadest measure of public support by presidential candidates from all states. In its purest form, this strategy is a uniting force, and its success something to celebrate. The other party would do well to attempt to emulate it in the future.

Early Release of President Bush

I heard a rumor the other day that there will be a major change in the traditional ceremony at the White House in which the President performs the annual ritual of pardoning the national turkey. The bird is then returned to the turkey farm and allowed to live to a ripe old age.

This year, the TURKEY WILL PARDON PRESIDENT BUSH, releasing him from his Presidential duties early, thus allowing Bush to return to Crawford on the first bus out of town. The turkey will then go into the Oval Office and assume the duties of the President until January 20.

How will they get away with it? Well, the belief is that no one is likely to notice any difference.

The early release of President Bush will be a blessing to the nation.
And that will be a blessing for which all will give thanks this Thanksgiving.

Tiptoe to the Horizon

If only we could tiptoe to the horizon and take a look over to gain at least a glimpse of what the future holds for us. None of us have that gift (or curse, depending on your point of view), but it doesn't take much imagination to see enormous potential for growth and strength in the American experience.

It seems clear that alternative fuels will soon power our automobiles, thus decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

It seems clear that alternative and renewable fuels will be used to generate our electricity, including clean coal technology (which really will be clean).

It seems clear that advances in nanotechnology will soon transform the way thousands of products are manufactured, and the products thus made will be in the millions.

It seems clear that computers will become increasingly more sophisticated, faster and more powerful, and even more integrated in our lives, not just to help us play video games or to keep us better connected to each other, but including, especially including, providing better health care.

The capitalist system is perfectly suited to take advantage of the innovation and invention that flows from American ingenuity. The problem for this country has been that, for the past eight years, there has been no leadership at the White House. The Bush-Cheney cabal was never able to address "that vision thing" -- as Bush 41 described it -- because they were not, and are not capable of it. With Obama taking the helm, at last we will have a chance to take advantage of the real potential in America that has been suppressed by this incompetent Administration.

If You Need a Clue...

The front page of today's The Washington Post displays the best clue to still unknowing Republicans why their candidate will not win on November 4.

The headline says: A Last Push to Deregulate. Here are the first three paragraphs:

"The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

"The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

"Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining."

There you have it. That's more of the Bush legacy that Americans have grown tired of.

THE PEOPLE ARE NOT IN CHARGE.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE.

THEIR GOAL IS TO DISMANTLE OUR GOVERNMENT.

Who among us does not look forward to lower "drinking water standards?" Won't that be special?

It's Bill Clinton's Fault

What is it with Republicans? Why do they hate Bill Clinton so much that they HAVE to attach every misbegotten deed that has adversely impacted the nation since he left office to something he did or didn’t do during the 8 years he was in office?

Mmmmmmmm…?

Was it his success as a President? Was it the balanced budget he submitted to Congress which Republican Presidents in recent history were want to do? Was it the enormous prosperity the country enjoyed during his presidency? Was it the record jobs created during his years of federal stewardship?

Or was it those moments of immoral behavior, moments of personal failing that have caused them to hate him so? If so, where is the Christian spirit of forgiveness they supposedly learned in church school each Sunday? Where were these “Christians” when THAT lesson was being taught?

I’ve heard Bill Clinton blamed for Osama bin Laden’s attacks on America. To hear Pat Robertson tell it, 9/11 was a direct result of Bill Clinton’s presidency. I’m sure he must have thought up that Mission Accomplished banner, too, knowing all the while the grief it would cause Bush 43.

I’ve heard him blamed for the mortgage crisis. One of the talk radio nuts said it was Bill Clinton who came up with the subprime lending scheme.

The next thing you know the Republicans will blame global warming on Bill Clinton. I guess he is to blame also for all those terrible hurricanes visited upon the Bush Administration. And surely he is to blame for those high prices at the gas pump which had us all running for Japanese hybrids.

Male pattern baldness will be next. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

I’ll bet Bill Clinton was the one who gave John McCain the idea that Sarah Palin would be a good choice for a running mate.

Higher taxes on higher profit or lower taxes on lower profit?

"I'd rather pay higher taxes on higher profit than lower taxes on lower profit."

That comment by a businessman in today's news sends a clear message to Republicans: "we're not buying the same old line this year." Did you hear that, McPalin team? We are not buying.


I think Americans finally understand the GOP's game. Every four years for at least 44 years, the GOP walks out the same old line: "Vote for us because we will lower your taxes and reduce the size of government. The only problem: they never do. It's a nice promise and they count on the voters with short attention spans and even shorter memories buying it.

I remember when Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller tried to sell it in 1964. Even Nelson Rockefeller, the acknowledged leader of the liberal wing of the Republican Party in the early 1960s was promising not to raise taxes. (Yes, there was a liberal wing of the Republican Party in those days.)

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew tried it, too, in 1968 and 1972 with better success. They even threw in a promise of victory in Vietnam with, "Peace is at hand." (They were smart enough not to say "victory is at hand" as John McCain does today.)

In 1976 Jerry Ford and Bob Dole would have used it to better effect if the aftermath of the Watergate scandal had not cleared the way for Democrats Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale to be elected.

Then came Reagan in 1980. The former Democrat, former actor turned Republican, understood what to do with the old line. He and George H.W. Bush got elected twice on the line. Voters generally have forgotten that Reagan/Bush tripled the national debt as they lowered taxes (because they did nothing to reduce spending) and the size of the government almost doubled on their watch. Oh well, maybe nobody noticed.

Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. He never came remotely close to even thinking about balancing a budget. Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the GOP, paid for his massive expansion of the federal government by pawning off the expense on the next generation. And he used his communication skills to tell us this was all somehow OK.

Bush 41 and Dan Quayle got their chance in 1988 and simply continued the Reagan "borrow and spend" years but Bush made one fatal mistake. He emphatically stated, "Read my lips: no new taxes." He forgot that you are not supposed to lay that sacrosanct campaign tenet in concrete, you are only supposed to promise lower taxes. But those Bush boys were never very good with the English language. When taxes went up and Bush 41 did not veto them, voters turned him out because he could not erase the words he had put in the consciousness of every voter.

Democrat Bill Clinton was the first President since Lyndon Johnson to present a balanced budget to the Congress and the American people. When he left office after two terms of consistent growth and prosperity, he left a $230 billion surplus for the next administration.

In 2000 Bush 43 came into office with his co-president, Dick Cheney (still hard to know who was the real President but that's another blog entry). Bush 43 and Cheney went back to 1964 and picked up the mantra: "we promise you lower taxes and smaller government." And they added, "Who knows better than you how to spend your own money? Certainly not the government." Sounds so sweet, doesn't it? They didn't believe it, of course, but sure thought the electorate would.

The GOP must think we are all infants...or idiots? 91.4 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET GOES TO DEFENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT. The GOP will not speak of these locked in spending items. Only Defense can be called discretionary but the GOP certainly does not see it as discretionary.

It is up to us -- as Sarah Palin likes to say -- to "call them out" when they promise something we and they know they can't deliver and indeed, have no intention to even attempt to deliver.

As Obama says, it's time to declare, "Enough."

The truth is this: The fiscally conservative party has indebted this country since 1980 with a mammoth amount of debt. Bush 43 will leave office on January 20, 2009, having doubled the national debt from 5.4 trillion dollars to 10.6 trillion dollars.

Just typing those record debt numbers is depressing to me. I'm ready for someone who will speak the truth to us, not the tired old mantra of discredited political ideology.

Not one of us wants to pay higher taxes, we just want to pay our fair share of taxes when it is warranted. That is patriotism in action. And we are all patriots -- at least we believe we are -- when we ask government to keep greed in check by regulating financial markets, care for the elderly by providing a small measure of support through Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, pay for the infrastructure that provides safe roads and bridges and levees, secure our borders from those who would do us harm, and most importantly, provide for the common defense. There's more, much more we Democrats AND Republicans expect of our government, but you get the picture. We will pay taxes, we will pay higher taxes if needed, but we insist they be taxes fairly apportioned among the citizens and expended only in ways that are transparent and fully accountable.

Just Practicing...

That's me at the rear of a Depression era soup line (shot at the FDR memorial in Washington, DC, 2005).

At the time this photo was taken, I had no idea I would be practicing for a possible repeat behind a real Bush Depression soup line in 2008.

God Bless America.

Out of the mouth of Bush...

President George Bush was on TV this afternoon attempting to explain what Congress did and what he did to address the credit crisis and the Wall Street meltdown. A small businessman explained the great difficulty he was having getting credit for his business operations and wanted to know what the President was doing about it.

First, President Bush said he "listened to some pretty smart people" and he followed their advice. "They said we had to make a big, bold move and we did. (shrugged his shoulders) I know some members of Congress didn't like it, they never like it when government makes a big, bold move, but we had to do something about freezing up credit."

I kid you not, that's what he said.

Is it any wonder the people are scared to death. Our leader doesn't have a clue what he is saying.

It truly is up to the candidates at the Nashville debate tonight to calm the waters if they can, to explain to the American people exactly how they would address the current financial crisis. In a very real sense, the people have stopped listening to their ersatz President and will be looking for one of these guys to help restore some measure of confidence in the financial system that makes America work. Can they do it? We'll see.

Republicans Wanted Hillary -- BAD!

All this talk about unrest and unhappiness and division in the ranks over Hillary not being on the ticket is just that – talk. Sure, there are hurt feelings among the Clinton supporters because their candidate didn’t win the nomination. But Clinton supporters know, in the end, they – and we – must be united in our effort to take back America from the POP party (Political Opportunist Party).

But Republicans are ticked! They wanted to run against Hillary. They have been salivating for years over the prospect of running in 2008 against Hillary. During the primaries, Republican strategists kept saying, “Hillary is tough; she would be the toughest candidate we could face.” Don’t you believe it! They wanted her! The McCain campaign is running an ad right now saying, “She got 18 million votes and isn’t even on the ticket!” In essence, they are saying, “We’re really upset with Obama for not giving us Hillary to bash.”

Here's what Republican strategist will never admit: If she had been on the ticket, the McCain campaign would have ignored Obama and run against Hillary Clinton. They would have re-run all the old stories about the Clintons. They had more negative Hillary material in the can and ready to go than they could possibly use over the course of the next 72 days. Yes, they wanted to run against Hillary --- BAD!

So, ignore the television pundits…and remember they are only repeating what the Republicans tell them about the “simmering division among Democrats.” Yes, some of the Hillary folks continue to be disappointed that their candidate is not carrying the banner for the party, but they know – we all know – as Joe Biden said last Saturday, “We LITERALLY cannot afford another four years of the Bush-Cheney-McCain” form of government. America CANNOT AFFORD it!

As you watch the Convention in Denver this week, no matter what you see or hear, here's one thing you can take to the bank: Democrats WILL be united in November and will be joined by many REAL Republicans and THINKING Independents in rejecting four more years of Bush-Cheney-McCain.

How to Begin to Repair Damage

My good friend, Joe Fab, recently described to me how Barack Obama could repair some of the damage Bush 43 has done to the US Constitution. Here are his thoughts:

“I'm repeatedly shocked to notice how few Americans seem to recognize the degree of destruction that the current administration has perpetrated in this regard. (If Obama would make this issue part of his campaign),Obama would also be buttressing his own image with respect to that critical factor: patriotism.

“A true patriot would understand the fundamentals on which the United States was built and would be able to explain how badly they've been broken. And, a patriot would stand up for those principles. Like those who serve this country in time of war, he would defend them with his life -- or in this case, with his presidential viability.

“I believe that a task force or some other substantial mechanism ought to be created within an Obama administration with the mission of identifying all the points of damage, and to prescribe and then manage their repair.

“When Obama spoke about the ongoing responsibility to work towards the perfection of the Union, he had one foot metaphorically on the ground I would like him to claim on behalf of us all. If he would vigorously announce his commitment to leading America in reclaiming her Constitution, I believe he would enhance his campaign and begin to organize us all around an issue that is absolutely critical to the future of this country.”

Thanks, Joe; I can’t think of any suggestion more in keeping with the thrust of this blog which is built on Ben Franklin’s description of the type of government he and the founding fathers created: “…you have a republic if you can keep it.”

Candidates -- Pure and Perfect in Every Way

And then there are those who insist that candidates for President be pure and perfect in every position they have taken since leaving the crib. You cannot take one position 40 years ago and get away with changing it today. Nosirree! That won’t do. And while you’re at it, you best be aware of every social, cultural and legal change that is likely to take place in the future. Decisions you make today must be consistent with any future domestic and international developments, or you’ll be toast. In other words, to be good enough for our support you must be a cross between a Benedictine monk and the Oracle of Delphi.

Above all, the record of your life must not reflect a lapse in judgment or a mistake of any kind. Not one. As one watches the news, listens to special interest groups, or reads the political blogs, one is led to conclude neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is qualified to lead this nation.

It’s silly…and every one of us is to blame if we accept the view that persons cannot change, cannot mature, cannot reevaluate positions, cannot learn from life experiences and become better for it.

In modern times, very few members of Congress have been successful in pursuing office of President of the United States. Each one always brings a legislative record ripe for the picking. Richard Nixon and John Kennedy are the notable exceptions in the past half century. Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush 43 were all governors and thus had no legislative record to pick apart.

But for a member of Congress, here’s what you might face –

“Well, I see you voted to confirm __x___ for the Supreme Court. (Now comes the social issues list) "You must be against the right to bear arms,” or “You must favor abortion rights?”

“Well, you voted to raise taxes ___x ___ times," or "You voted to raise the national debt ___x ___ times. You must be one of those 'tax and spend' liberals.”

“Well, you voted against the war before you were for it. What, you don’t know your position or are you trying to have it both ways?”

This year, the person elected President will be a member of the United States Senate…so an exception is in the works. But to be safe, when John McCain and Barack Obama pick their running mates, both are likely to pick someone not in any legislative body anywhere. In other words, they are likely to pick a governor like Charlie Crist of Florida, or Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota for McCain. For Obama, it’s likely to be a governor like Ted Strickland of Ohio or Tim Kaine of Virginia – to name a few. That way, the media and special interests will not be able to spend the fall combing the voting record of their running mate, thus distracting voters from the issues important to the race.

But this is not the way it should be. In the record of every man and woman offering his life in the service of the nation, mistakes will be found. Sometimes major mistakes will be found. We have to find a way to get over throwing the candidate out who has ever stumbled. The question we should ask candidates is not “Have you ever made a mistake,” rather it should be, “Have you learned from your mistakes and what have you learned?” The answer to that question should be the only thing that is weighed in the balance.

We should be very afraid of the candidate – or officeholder – who says he has not made a mistake. Remember when Bush 43 told a press conference at The White House he could not think of a single mistake he had made in his Presidency? Bush 43 likes to compare himself to George Washington. Well, Washington made plenty of mistakes, and he admitted to most of them. The difference is George Washington learned from his mistakes and the record shows he worked diligently never to repeat them.

The father of our country was a great man, a great leader, and like all fathers, flawed. That’s the candidate I want to support for office. I want a candidate not afraid to make mistakes, confident enough to admit to his mistakes and wise enough to apply the lessons learned to strengthen this republic.

Five Years Ago Today

As Bush 43 sauntered up to the microphone on the deck of the USS Lincoln, sniffed the air out of the side of his nose, and cast that “I’m so proud of myself” eye around the gathered sailors, one could almost taste an impending public relations disaster.

When he said “the United States and our allies have prevailed” in the war in Iraq, I immediately called to my wife who was in the next room. “Come here, quickly. You have to see this!” She ran into the room wondering why she had to drop everything and come. “It is not often one gets to see a major political figure – not to mention the leader of the free world – make a huge political mistake live and in living color on national television," I explained.

We both watched in rapt attention…..but as he finished I had a terrible sense of sadness. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the history of the Middle East knew the President – our President – was wrong, that plenty of long hard days lay ahead for our troops and our nation. No one could imagine it would last this long. May 1, 2003 was a sad day for America. But so is today.

Why "...if you can keep it."

For the first entry in this new blog, I picked a title that has an important message for this generation -- and here is the story behind that title:

When the Constitutional Convention completed its great work in 1787, the story is told about the lady who stopped Franklin, as he was descending the steps of the State House, and she asked him, “Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you created?” Franklin replied, “Madam, you have a republic if you can keep it.”

Those last five words, “…if you can keep it” are, in my view, the five most insightful words uttered by one of our founders.

Franklin understood how fragile was the new government just established. He knew keeping it would not be easy. He knew each generation would be required to sacrifice a good measure of its own blood, sweat and tears to protect it. Indeed, he felt each new generation had an obligation to do so.

“You have a republic if you can keep it.”

Franklin’s words ring in our ears each time President Bush issues a “signing statement” declaring his administration will not follow the legislative intent of the bill he just signed.

His words resound loudly each time another freedom is trampled by executive order.

They echo each time the Bush administration describes the Constitution as a “living document” – a draft, in other words – to be amended as required to satisfy the private agenda of a small group of partisans.

Our republic is fragile – so is the Constitution that underpins it – and the people know it. Our republic has been at risk for the past seven years – and the people know it.

The pundits haven’t caught up with the people. They wonder why so many Americans are participating in record numbers in the Democratic primaries, why voter turnout has been so high.

They don’t understand, as you do, dear reader, what is at stake.

You understand the perilous condition of our republic. You want to be a part of shoring up the bulwarks that protect us.

You are reading this because you believe the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches are – and must be – truly equal branches of our government.

You believe in a government that invites the best and brightest from all corners of this republic into it, men and women willing to reach across the aisle, coalesce around the best ideas, and govern in the interest of all.

It matters only that we Americans remain united and dedicated to one purpose – to keep this republic, to keep it strong, and to pass it on to the next generation stronger than we found it.

We are, after all, a republic, not a pure democracy, and it is up to us to select the best person from among all Americans to lead us as President, and to select for the Congress those individuals of intellect and temperament worthy of our trust, individuals who will read, study, learn and vote for us, seeking only to represent the best interest of all Americans.

These past seven years, America has stumbled badly. But this Presidential race has given us an opportunity to walk to the horizon for a look at our future. Many have taken that walk, have peeked over the horizon, and see an America whose best days are yet to come. Barack Obama is the candidate, in my view, who understands how fragile is this republic and what it takes to strengthen its underpinnings. You and I will not always agree with him but we should not expect that. "Does Obama agree with me" is not the question we should ask of him. The question should be: "Mr. Obama, will you help us...keep this republic?"