I like Sarah, though I noticed her voice was a little weak.

Newt could have a D after his name at this point.

Romney spoke the toughest on protecting Americas southern border, one of our three big problems, the other two being socialism and Islam. I think that ices it for Mit.

Santorum seems good but always a bit weak or to small, I think he seems a bit to feminine for a male President.

Ruth reminds me of one of those dried prunes in the box, other than that shes just another liberal dolt in a position of power working her evil to bring down America.

Barac Obama is anti American, a product of the communist sympathizers from the red scare days of the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. He is the fruition of Stalins subversive policies, and the liberal dolts of that time fooling themselves, pretending they were doing something great.

Another 4 years of Barac may be the straw that breaks the camels back.

If we as a nation will not devide out into our two mutually exclusive halves, and further if American culture and greatness are to survive, democrat rule must come to an end and republican rule must begin.

BHO, the anti American, pro socialist, pro Islamic, Messiahnic President needs to be retired for the good of America, humanity and our posterity.

One and done. Nobama 2012, vote republican. Thank you.

"...if she had limited her remarks to the state of her own aging constitution." Damn good line! Hope I can use it soon.

Burt,

Ginsburg swore an oath to that old document, if she really meant those words she should rightly step down.

But, of course, progressives have no problem ignoring their word of honor or sacred oath to God.

Burt

Sarah Palin's voice often affected me the same way as nails on a chalk board. But I do like what she says. On the other hand when I hear Obama, his wife, Hillary, Sharpton, Reed, Pelosi,.... ad nauseum, I want to hit them with the same chalkboard. Figuratively of course.

All this talk about Newt, Mitt, et al, is a waste of breath and words on a page. From what I can see, the socialist will win, as he has announced. And frankly, Republicans deserve defeat by running two Obama-lite candidates. I'm focusing on the House and Senate races where we still face a formidable challenge. The Republican race has turned into a cluster-well, you know...they couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. Sad that we deserve what we get.

Oh, we'll, let's vote for the liberal Northeasterner and "hope" for the best.

The results of the GOP debates Burt---noIdidn't,yesyoudid, noIdidn't,yesyoudid, next question asked: yesIdid, noyoudidn't,yesIdid, nououdidn't, soooo we're down to eeniemeenieminniemoe---you fill in the rest. I haven't seen the three stooges do such a bang-up job for quite awhile, and thats just what I think the GOP has. Moe-Mitt, Larry-Rick, Curly-Newt, and finally Shep-Ron.

Burt,

you and I probably agree on more than we disagree, but based on your paragraph four, I have some questions.

YOU WROTE:

"But the fact is, what's required of a president are principles and a political philosophy that's in tune with that of America's founding fathers. A president always has access to the best ideas in America; he needn't limit himself to only those that spring willy-nilly from his own head."

I could NOT agree more with the first sentence. I'm not so much in favor of Ron Paul, the man, as I am hungry for the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES and PHILOSOPHY he has expressed though his rhetoric AND his actions throughout his career.

The most important of these principles is to 1. LIMIT the central government to powers enumerated and delegated in the Constitution (CUT SPENDING on non-authorized activity) AND 2. a NON-Interventionist foreign policy (limiting military spending to DEFENSE) --- keeping the Founder's rightful fear of a standing army and a reasonable check on the "undue influence" of the military industrial complex of which Eisenhower warned.

Republicans do NOT seem to act on their stated goal to reduce government scope and LIMIT government to the enumerated powers and authority of the Constitution. The GOP demonstrates hypocrisy by going along with unconstitutional spending and usurpation. Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul have stood against improper spending. Sadly, few others have demonstrated or articulated any true CONSISTENT stand for principle on this.

As you noted, a President has access to the best ideas. So why hasn't a Republican leader seized on the ideas of the Founding Principles, the Rule of Law and CONSISTENTLY stood unyielding for the Constitution?

WHY doesn't the Party membership DEMAND this from its leaders and nominees? As Reagan pointed out, Government is NOT the solution -- it IS the problem. As Barry Goldwater has pointed out, the people's main interest is LIBERTY, not government "solutions."

You are on target with the assessment of Newt; he is a narcissist and egomaniac on the order of Obama. Romney and Santorum flip-flop on every issue that is relevant to a President, offering only government "solutions" instead of standing for Principle and saying the Government must be removed as an obstacle to Liberty.

Ron Paul is the only candidate standing for the Founding Principles and Rule of Law we profess to revere. So the question is, why isn't the Republican Party embracing Paul? Why isn't Paul the leader by far in this campaign?

The answer I hear repeatedly in this forum is that he's "nutty, wacky" and "weak on foreign policy." So it seems that the lamestream media contributed the name-calling that so-called conservatives use. And Republicans apparently, truly don't like the Founders wise policy of non-interventionism. They prefer the warfare state and aggressive foreign policy.

Robert E. Lee, in a letter to Lord Acton after the war said that the consolidation of the States into one vast empire, would create a monster that is "sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home." Those words were indeed prophetic.

The Party that claims to revere the Constitution and LIMITED government cannot see that its spending habits and aggressive war machine are indeed crushing Liberty here at home. Wars always lead to debt and higher taxes. Necessary wars are just that, but our aggressive foreign policy of intervening in every conflict keeps us in wars the Founders would never enter.

Next up, Syria and Iran. Every GOP candidate except Ron Paul is ready to get those wars going today. What's wrong with this picture, Burt?

As for the prune Ginsburg, we need a Congress with the principles to Impeach her for betraying her oath of office. If she doesn't like our Constitution, she has no business on the court.

Steve: Sorry, I couldn't get through your entire essay. But I would refute what I read to this extent: Reagan, whom we both admired, was in the Oval Office for eight years and did nothing to diminish the size of the federal government. I expect at this point, trying to seriously cut its size is a lot like trying to get all the toothpaste back into the tube. But at least a Republican president would not try to turn the country into a socialist state the way Obama and his left-wing groupies have tried.

MARINE: These are not debates; they are staged events during which we can check these guys out for their demeanor.

Tex: If Obama thought he was a shoo-in, he would be back on the golf course, not out every day raising campaign funds. I am willing to make a wager with you that he will not win in November...the American people will.

mac: I couldn't agree more.

Burt

Burt, Reagan was trying to win the Cold War which he did with high defense spending. The unfortunate tradeoff was comparable social spending and more debt. Not sure if Reagan could have defeated Congress and lowered spending if the Cold War military build were not part of the equation. ??

In any event, your attitude seems to be surrender. If we cannot reverse the growth of government AND DEBT, or even hold it fixed, then all is lost. The Dems stand for bankruptcy in five to ten years, the Repubs then stand for bankruptcy in 10 or 20 years. Socialist or not, bankrupt is still bankrupt.

Do not believe anyone who says so-and-so cannot be elected because they are too moderate, too conservative, or whatever. We need to elect someone who will turn Leviathan around, eliminate most of the cabinet departments created in the last 30 years, immediately dismiss all of the Obummer's czars, and rid us of the Obamanation's "health care" fraud that will end all freedom in America in a few years. In extreme cases the blood of patriots must be shed to regain the freedom that is slipping away more rapidly.

As Steve said above, we should not surrender. Otherwise, we become like Europe on our way to a third world nation ruled by Sharia.

Burt, perhaps you haven't heard but the Chosen One is so confident that he will win that he has publicly announced he will be president for five more years. If money has anything to do with it, and it does, last report I saw was that Romney has about 7-8 million, Obama 75 million.

What's your wager?

When Ginsburg was up to be a Supreme, Dole said the Republicans should vote to confirm her. The vote was better than 90 for. Could this be one of the reasons Benedict Dole lost the 96 election to kommnadnat klinton? And before anyone jumps on me for comparing him to Arnold consider both were war heroes Arnold at Saratoga and for the defense of West Point. Arnold sold out to the Crown because his wife was upset that he did not get a promotion. Dole thought he had a devine right to be king (oops President). And they were both wounded in battle.

@ Tex Horn

I'm betting on the American people. Obama barely got in last time, and as Burt pointed out before, there'll be huge numbers determined not to make the same mistake twice.

I believe this election is critical though. I remember Rush said we'd be able to weather Obama but questioned if we could weather the people who voted for him. If we've gone over that tipping point then I'm going to ask Burt to write more "America Divided" articles.

oops- Make that "The Divided States of America".

Sorry Burt.

Good comments all around. Everyone is right and everyone is, well, short of a straight flush. The perfect solution is to elect someone who is constrained totally by the constitution and accepts this as his/her covenant with the American people past and present;i.e., completely and constantly aware of their oath of office. Good luck!

My historical perspective tells me that ALL past presidents have, after George Washington, have had a personal interpretation of the constitution that fitted their own personal agenda. Ronald Reagon, in modern times, came closest to its intent, but, as always, was buffeted by the winds of political realities.

We are at those crossroads again. Who comes cooses to the tenets of the constitution?

We are going off a financial cliff. It is no longer a question of, "If? It is merely a matter of, "When?"

We are not broke - we would need to come up with $15,000,000,000,000 to get up to the point of being broke. Think a BILLION dollars is a bunch of money? I know I do. We need to come up with that much - FIFTEEN THOUSAND TIMES OVER just to get the national balance sheet back to zero. And even that barely puts a dent in unfunded liabilities, which are now well over ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS.

The European Union is on the verge of collapse, and China is a basket case: they have huge internal problems and much of their hard currency "assets" are denominated in U.S. Dollars and Euros that will never be paid back. When Europe goes over the edge they will take us with them, and we'll take China with us.

It. Is. Inevitable.

If it does not happen before the election Obama will probably be re-elected. We will go off the cliff during his second term and he will be blamed - but it will be too late for our liberty to survive.

If it does happen before the election Obama will be blamed by enough people for Romney to be elected - but it will be too late for our liberty to survive anyway.

Either way, the cliff looms, and our liberty will not survive the coming worldwide financial tsunami. We will be a VERY different country in 2016, and it won't matter much whether we elect Tweedledee from Illinois or Tweedledum from Massachusetts. The major-party affiliation of the person who will be sitting in the big chair come next January will be about as important as the outcome of a high school student body president election when the bottom drops out.

The patient is dying. This election is not about choosing the right surgeon - it is about picking the least-offensive funeral director. This is the least important presidential election in my lifetime.

K.Y.P.D.

I didn't say anything about surrendering. But it doesn't hurt to be realistic. Reality tells me that nobody in the Oval Office will or would even be able to cut the size of the federal government, but he could cut spending and get rid of most of the absurd regulations that Obama and his groupies have saddled us with.

Thanks, mac. I take it that you and I are willing to take Tex's money if he insists on betting on Obama.

If Obama really thought he was a shoo-in, he would be working on his golf game and not flying all around the country trying to build up his war chest. By the time Romney garners the nomination, the GOP will have plenty of money on hand.

Don't be depressed by the polls showing Obama beating various Republican contenders. For one thing, so long as the primary fight continues, Republicans won't be able to unite. For another thing, note that Obama isn't scoring 50% against the contenders. When an incumbent isn't consistently over 50%, smart money says he is going to lose.

Burt

@ Mac: I hope you are right about the American people. I wish I had the same confidence. And you make some good points.

Burt, neither Romney, Gingrich, nor Santorum can oudebate Obama. The smooth-talking socialist is telling the people what they want to hear, including a large portion of the 40-some million people on the government dole, the unions (making gains because of Obama's policies), and those near where you are, Burt, the "middle of the road" or slightly right of that position. The latter group will fail America, I predict. And I regret that I see it that way...but reality...right Burt? And the wager is?

Am I the only one who thinks Obama is NOT the sharpest tool in the shed?

He's lost without a teleprompter.

The assorted 'ums' and 'ers' he stumbles over whenever he attempts an ad lib makes him sound like an idiot.

He is a stuffed shirt - PERIOD!!!

Tex: The debates are not going to determine the outcome in November. The Dems will say Obama won, the Republicans will say that Romney won. Those in the middle probably won't be watching. Obama will win or lose on his record. Nobody who didn't vote for him last time will vote for him this time, and a lot of people who voted for him because they didn't realize he was an extremist or because they wanted to feel good about voting for a black guy will not vote for him this time. With unemployment over 8%, with gas selling for twice what it sold for when he won in 2008, just what do you think he could possibly say in a debate that would change things in his favor? Ten dollar bet? Or $5 if mac wants half my action.

Burt

I remember watching McCain and Obama debate in 08, I really thought John won hands down. However that doesn`t matter to the liberal dolt constituents. They just vote for the guy with the D after his name.

If that`s not bad enough 95% of blacks voted for Obama because he is black and I expect 90-95% will vote for him again.

If God came down from on high and showed both the white liberal dolts and the blacks that if Barac were elected two days later the planet would be consumed in an all out thermonuclear war, they would still vote for Obama.

All republicans must vote republican and the republican candidate must court, woo and win the independents and libertarians.

Of course both houses are important as well, but with Barac having done so much harm and destruction to America, his re-election is America asking for the coup de grace.

Election day 11/12 America must decide whether or not to put its head in the guilotine.

One and done. Nobama 2012, vote republican. Thank you.

Just curious, did Justice Ginsburg say she does not follow the U.S. Constitution or that she should not or even that she wishes she didn't have to? All she said was that if she was recommending a model for Egypt in 2012, she would not recommend a constitution written in a completely different place by a completely different group of people for a completely different cultural and political situation 220 years ago. Do people really believe that EVERY NATION ought to have the exact same constitution as the U.S.? I think you can still obey and admire the U.S. Constitution without saying it is applicable to all people in all situations in the world.

Burt and Tex,

I'm in for the fin of it!

joe b.,

The U.S. Constitution would be the best model simply because human rights are given by one's creator and not by governments who have a nasty habit of 'lording' over their vassels...

I still believe the old "silent majority" will vote out Obama in November. As Mac (no relation) wrote above, Obama barely got in last election (53% of the popular vote). Yes, there is a confederacy of fools who will vote for Obama as the country crumbles, but those self-centered ignorant utopians are vastly outnumbered by those on the right side of the political spectrum.

There will always be the Ginsbergs who will insist on radical egalitarianism and the Obamas who will attempt to emplement it through a fascist hegemonic federal government, but as a guy once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." I believe that vigilance will defeat Obama's fascism in November.

@ Burt and Mac: you're on. Ten bucks. And, to be perfectly honest, I hope I lose this one. But unfortunately, I don't believe I will. While you made some very good points, Burt and Mac, I just don't think there's enough people who will be voting for the liberal Romney ticket. I predict if he is nominated, Republicans will stay home in droves. I hope I'm wrong about that.

My gut tells me that Obama will lose simply because of pocket book issues. He won't have enough airheads to believe his lies this time. Blacks and utopians won't be enough. Gas prices, unemployment, Great Recession, wars ongoing, Gitmo open, no tax cut, no deficit in half, no "good" change and hope dwindling.

Keeping it real, though, suppose Romney is in with a Repub majority Senate and House majority maintained. THEN the ball's in their court. No Exuses, right?

Does anyone think we'll see a significant drop in the deficits? Wars ending? Entitlements cut? Unconstitutional Programs and Departments ended? Bankruptcy may be delayed slightly, but for how long? Remember, the Dems will still have the media on their side.

OK, so we repeal Obamacare and boot the czars and repeal some dopy regs. Good. But real, deep change? Will we get a grip on the Mexican border? History suggests NO.

What did the Repubs do in 2002.. thru 2006? The bridge to nowhere and record spending. Border stayed wide open. Patriot Act, lost liberties at home. NDAA will stay on the books and gutting of the Constitution will continue. World wide wars will rage and we're supposed to believe in Homeland Security when we won't even control our border.

Voting for STATUS QUO is no real victory, just a brief postponement of the end.

Burt,

What are the Vegas Odds on the election? I too don't think Obamao can win, unless he completely suspends the elections indefinetely and declares himself king. That scenario has more merit than an outright electoral win.

I feel sorry for those poor unfortunates who equate bagpipes with nails on a chalkboard. I personally feel they are a fine instrument, when played well. Jimmy McCrae, Eric the Piper, Peatbog Faeries, and Seven Nations are all fine examples of the pipes played well. A violin is a fine instrument, but badly played could also equate to nails on a blackbord. It may be part of my genetic makeup as second generation American of Scottish immigrants, but nonetheless bagpipes are sweet music to my ears.

Burt,

Steve is a perfect example of the Ron Paul supporter, a ranting lunatic who can't see the dangerous world we live in and the isolationist idiocy of Paul. It is useless to argue with the minions of Paul, I just hope when Paul is not the nominee they don't go off the deep end and run a third party effort that just might ensure the Obamination campaign a victory. That insanity would doom the country.

I think the Tea Party will become a force - again - in this election.

This time, the GOP will realize we're not going away. We will not allow our party to make anymore consessions to a high-jacked marxist democrat party.

Note to John McCain: Retire, old man. Spend some much needed time with your daughter who appears to be in need of remedial conservative values training. ("progressive republican", indeed!)

The debates are a total waste of time. The various talking heads (mostly socialists on the democrap side and RINO's on the republicrat side) look at it as a college debating course or club. There are three actual groups that watch these things. Group one is the democraps and/or socialists or worse, they believe the democrap won. The second group are the republicans, they think anyone with a R behind his name won. The third group is the great unwashed who think the best looking, tallest, best smile, etc. won. I have better things to do, my sock draw needs rearranging. I judge a candidate by what they have done and what they actually believe in. Flip flipping generally means they have no beliefs and will say anything to get a vote. Say isn't that the definition of a politician?

Howard: I was a Democrat for a great many years, so I suppose I'm a flip-flopper. All I know is that I haven't heard Romney say anything over the past four or five months that I disagree with, so I am happy to support his candidacy. If you read my earlier comment, you'll see we agree about the value of the presidential debates.

wjm: Before every presidential election, at least since the Clinton days, I hear people suggesting that the incumbent will enforce martial law and cancel the election. And just who do you think would accept that order from Obama? Certainly not the military, not the National Guard, not the cops. Perhaps Michelle.

Steve: By your logic, there's no point in people taking their meds or undergoing surgery because it merely postpones the inevitable. Besides, a lot has changed since 2002-2006. For one thing, there was no Tea Party back then and we hadn't suffered through a Dodd/Frank/Pelosi/Reid-controlled Congress and three years of an Obama White House.

Tex & mac: The bet is on. Tex, any Republican who stays home because he thinks there is no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is an idiot and should, henceforth, be referred to as such in public. If I had my way, they would, like lepers in the old days, have to ring a little bell and announce their presence, not as "Unclean," but as

"Stupid."

Burt

Burt

Burt, Romney agreed with the Hero of Chappaquiddick on guns. That is reason enough not to support him. As for his great accomplishment rescuing the Olympics, I could not care less. The only Olympic sport that I would watch they never show on TV, they hardly ever even give the results. I of course am speaking about the shooting events.

As for canceling the elections and declaring martial law, we never had a committed communist in the White House before. But kommandant klinton and Carter did come close. Oops I forgot Joe Stalin's best friend FDR.

Howard: Calm down. Romney is not going to reverse the Second Amendment. Even if he could, no Republican president is going to do that because he knows conservatives would hate him for it and liberals wouldn't give him any credit. Besides, it's an Amendment, so no president even has the authority to get rid of it by fiat. If he had, Carter, Clinton or Obama, would have done it already.

As for declaring martial law, just who do you think would accept that order?

We can almost agree about the Olympics. Inasmuch as even the shooting events don't interest me, I never turn on the Games.

Burt

Tex & Burt,

Just to clarify, Obama must win re-election for Tex to win.

Opponent doesn't matter.

If Obama kicks the bucket by a freak of nature or any other means, doesn't matter.

In the event of martial law, where there is any delay to the election, we still win by default.

Burt, we may have let Tex off a little too cheaply.

mac: There's nothing to say you can't up the stakes. I'm satisfied with winning the $5, which would only be the cherry atop the hot fudge sundae of Obama's defeat. Besides, with only $5 riding on the outcome, I figure I'd have a good chance of collecting...and so, I hasten to add, would Tex.

wjm: I would never intentionally offend Scots. But I'm afraid that when it comes to bagpipe music, it's an acquired taste, sort of like olives, oysters and having bamboo shoots driven under one's fingernails.

Burt

Burt,

I happen to know wjm likes oysters, as for the olives and bamboo shoots I'd bet he would eat them but not insert them. At least that's my take from the early 70's when we were reluctant roommates.

I'll stick with the $5 bet for the good reasons you mentioned and also because if we lose I know I wouldn't be able to afford anything more, what with all the new taxes and the inevitable depression.

@ Mac: you're stacking the deck, my friend. I think I'll side with Burt and stick with my bet of ten bucks. I'll even accept all your "rules", although "if he kicks the bucket" is stretching the bounds a bit...

@ Tex Horn

It's on.

I was just thinking about Obama's knack of ticking off his base sometimes. He may just anger some of his jihadist friends and we all know how irrational they can be.

mac: Was wjm an equally reluctant roommate or was it just you?

Tex/mac: $10 it is! I'm only afraid that if Obama wins, Tex may have to collect his $5 from my widow. I'm just not sure I could bear to put up with an additional four years of that left-wing creep.

Burt

Sibling rivalry was a bit much. Finally got the room to myself when he went to UofI.

I did end up hitching down I-57 for some very memorable week-ends though. He turned out to be OK, let me use his ID and gave me all the quarters I needed for the Pabst Blue Ribbon machines on each floor of the DU house.

Tex, I hope you lose and you do too, so let's enjoy us a friendly wager!

@wjmccrindle

Ranting lunatic?

The U.S. spends more on its military than the next 13 nations combined and yet you rant about how dangerous the world is, hoping, I presume, to grow the military even larger... losing sleep that anyone is suggesting a reasonable cut.

ARE we really in danger of attack and being overwhelmed? Really? Try not to wet the bed.

Non-interventionism is NOT the same as Isolationism and you know it. Drop the name-calling if you can't use an accurate label.

You're right that it's useless to argue with me, especially when your arguments are so pathetic.

Burt, remember Katrina, when they started confiscating firearms from citizens? And don't forget Waco and Ruby Ridge. At Ruby Ridge they used tanks. BTW, when does Herr Reno get out of jail for incinerating children?

@ Howard Last : I believe it was here in Texas, at Waco, that Janet Reno murdered women and children and used tanks to start the conflagration.

Tex, I meant Waco (should proof read better). At Ruby Ridge they shot and killed Vicky Weaver while she was holding her baby and said they thought she was holding a rifle. When my daughter was a baby not once did I put a cartridge in her mouth. And I never tried to diaper a rifle. How much jail time did the shooter serve? What he did not serve any jail time!

Let's not loose hope. At least some of you must remember the dismal State of the Union when Reagan took office. We had double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. His administration was the cure for the economic dolrums and started 20+ years of growth.

Reagan also had to win the Cold War, and had to do it fighting Tip O'Neal and his Democratic minions, and a Republic Senate only part of his 2 terms. After the preceding attempted destruction of the US military, he also had to spend on rebuiilding it. Over all, I think he did remarkably well. He did have cutting government as part of his plans, but could not accompish that as well. He did try, and got suckered a couple of times, you might remember, with Democratic promises that never materialized. He should have made a policy of "trust, but verify" with THEM.

Further, it appears that much of the gloom and doom is the same straight-line projecting and static analysis we all know is so much of the same horse dung that Reagan faced. Remember "stagflation" and how the best we could do was manage (ie., downsize) our expectations and hope for a soft landing? (Just like Kissinger wante to make the best deal he could for the West in the face of the "inevitable" victory of communism/the USSR. Ha! Remind me to tell you the "Smartest Man in the World" classic jobke.) Look at the size of the economy then and now, and the size of the debt, then and now. We need to cut, but the real solution is growth. In My Not So Humble Opinion, if we can do some cutting - but mainly =regulations= not just spending, we will need to jump back out of the way to not get run over by the growth. (Like get rid of the EPA!) Drill baby, drill and build and build. (With the added benefit that the Middle East can go to he!! in a handbasket since we won't be held hostage by them anymore.) Growth also eliminates the need for much of the "safety net" expense, especially for the great many (IMO) who would rather work and earn their way. There are many good ideas that can be implimented, and many possible ways the get there from here.

The key is electing as many conservatives to the House and Senate as possible. (And that means Republicans, as the Dems have been purging theirs.) Meanwhile, ANY of the GOP candidates would be orders of magnitudes better than Obummer. We need to win ALL 3 Houses. Even the most moderate of the GOP candidates can be pushed by the House and Senate, but we must get the Traitor in Chief out of the White House; the damage he is doing is unbelievable and must be stopped! If re-elected, I fear his naked power-grabs will just be a warm-up to the totalitarian future he is building.

@wjm - Something tells me that Burt really, really wouldn't care for the Northumbrian variety of pipes.

Steve,

I agree with your sentiment but there's a flaw in your analysis. Let me explain. You wrote the following about Reagan, "After the preceding attempted destruction of the US military, he also had to spend on rebuilding it. Over all, I think he did remarkably well. He did have cutting government as part of his plans, but could not accomplish that as well." But if we concede that we have to give Lyndon Johnson a pass on the Great Society programs. Unlike Reagan, Johnson inherited a shooting war in Asia from his predecessor. Like Johnson, when required to choose between guns and butter, Reagan chose "all of the above."

The fact is that if cutting spending was one of his goals, he did not accomplish that AT ALL. We could debate how good a president Reagan was, but we cannot debate the fact that the size and scope of the federal government greatly increased between 1980 and 1988.

I've been drawing breath since the Kennedy Administration. As I look at the trend lines during my time on this mortal coil I notice a few things.

For a rough estimate of the degree of over-regulation, look at the year-by-year number of pages added to the "Federal Register."

The Federal Register numbers are here: http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/fed-reg-pages.pdf

(You can only go back to 1973, as the format drastically changed then, so comparing years before that to years after that is apples-to-oranges.) You can see that the trend has been upward for both Republicans and Democrats. And GWB was an even more profligate regulator than his immediate Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton.

Then look at the year-by-year amount of our national deficits and debt here: http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

The interesting thing here is that the best way to bring down the annual deficit (not to be confused with cumulative national debt) is to have a Democrat president and a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. (That makes sense, since the House originates all spending bills, and the tension between the two branches creates a certain amount of gridlock that prevents more spending than occurs whenever both branches are held by the same party.)

But the most important trend-line is the cumulative national debt. The debt has gone up, and up, and up every year since before I was born. Democrat, Republican, House, Senate, President... doesn't matter. The slope only goes one way. It is simply unsustainable, and unless we reverse it - rapidly and drastically - R or D is irrelevant.

It will not happen, though, because we no longer want it. American voters will simply not elect any politician who will tell them the truth about what we must do to avoid imminent disaster. Romney isn't going to say it. Obama certainly isn't. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich is. Nobody else is in contention.

At this point the "lesser of two evils" or "I'll hold my nose and vote for any Republican" is moral cowardice, and no longer even has the virtue of being pragmatic.

Last post should have said Mike, not Steve.

@ Steve - I really owe you an apology. I said in a post of two or three weeks ago that no one would read a post as long as the one you wrote, except Burt, and only because it was his column.

I was wrong.

Even Burt wouldn't read it!

Your posts are much more readible when they are shorter, as you have demonstrated. I discovered you have some really good ideas - except one.

Again, forget about Paul. He won't become the nominee unless the other three candidates leave the race...... well..... he just won't be the nominee period. Give it up.

Progressives hate the Constitution because it limits their options for transforming us into a Socialist/Marxist regime.

"Before every presidential election, at least since the Clinton days, I hear people suggesting that the incumbent will enforce martial law and cancel the election. And just who do you think would accept that order from Obama? Certainly not the military, not the National Guard, not the cops. Perhaps Michelle."

OK Burt, with that remark you have shown yourself to be every bit as delusional as the Ron Paul fan club. Who would accept that order from Obama? Um... maybe the same people who have accepted his orders in Libya and Afghanistan perhaps? A military that has no problem with taking orders to march into futile wars across the globe that are never meant to be won, will have no compunction against being ordered to "defend democracy" by putting down a "revolution against the Government". You don't seem to realize that Americans today (and that includes those in the military) equate the Constitution and the Country with the Government. "We the People" has come to be supplanted by "We the Government" in the minds of the majority of Americans. This is the reality of oligarchies the world over, and to say, "It can't happen here", is not only naive, it's stupid.

Ragweed: Very sound advice. I understand that some of my readers are frustrated columnists, but, frankly, once I see a comment running on and on, I give it a pass. Life's too short to spend time reading articles trying to pass themselves off as comments written by people who are not writers.

Burt

BTW; I forgot to mention: I'm not saying Obama WILL declare martial law, or in some other way delay or suspend the election; I'm only saying that IF he did, the military would carry out his orders.

I have one question, "Is there anyone out there that did not vote for our Liar-In-Chief in 2008 that will vote for him in 2012?"

"Life's too short to spend time reading articles trying to pass themselves off as comments written by people who are not writers."

Wow! That really comes off as elitist snobbery. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, Burt, but that is the way it struck me.

I'm not sure if Burt's comment about long-ish posts written by "people who are not writers" was directed at Steve, or me, or both of us, but I have written political commentary professionally under my real name. I didn't get famous, but I did get paid.

@Tom

Now THAT'S a knee slapper!

Tex, I'll take your bet. If Obama wins again,, shortly thereafter a dollar won't be worth much anyway.

I think we should all remember why Barack got elected in 2008. Prior to the collapse of the economy it was said that the Democratic party was the party that couldn't possibly lose and had a presidential candidate who couldn't possibly win.

The October housing collapse was what tipped the scales.

It's 2012 and things are NOT better. What does Barack have going for him this time?

Of course we could still lose if we decide that our nominee is a "Culture warrior" and will make us all "moral" again.

Like I said, say Goodnight Gracie.

RWL

Army Officer (Ret)

I was here before Kennedy; I remmeber being unhappy at his election.

I think you need to both pull out and reread the Constitution and find some good history sources.

Reagan's rebuilding the military was in compliance of one of the things the Federal Government is mandated to do. BTW, this had Everything to do with winning the Cold War. Spending amounts alone are not the issue, and certainly spending in support of National Defense does not at all compare to the unConstitutional Great Society of LBJ.

As far as LBJ inheriting a "shooting war" you best check the history of that conflict. It was LBJ that turned it into America in a shooting war; it really was LBJ's war, not Kennedy's. Kennedy sent a handful of advisors in 1961. In Nov. 1963 both Kennedy and S. Vietnams' Diem were assasinated. Aug 2, 1964N. Vietnam patrol boats fire on USS Maddox in Gulf of Tonkin. Mar 8, 1965 Marines amphibious landing at Danang, South Vietnam - the first combat troops, i.e., not advisors. USAF was already there and obviously USN was offshore.

Now back to the Constitution: where do spending bills originate? And wasn't it Democrats who held that House for 40 years straight until the 1994 election?

Note also that blaming Presidents for deficits really has not been valid since Nixon. They have no line-item veto and since Nixon can no longer sequester funds appropriated by Congress.

Before you criticize my analysis next time, you might want to check your facts.

Not such a sure thing, gamblers. Obama has a huge majority lock on Afro-Americans, liberals, Democrats, Hispanics, union members, minorities, non-tax payers, welfare recipients , and white women (but not a huge majority for ww.)

Assuming Obama carries every state where he won at least 54% of the 2008 vote (except New Hampshire), then the ELECTORAL COLLEGE gives him CA(55), CO(9), CT(7), DC(3), DE(3), HI(4), IA(6), IL(20), MA(11), MD(10), ME(4), MN(10), NE(1), NJ(14), NM(5), NV(6), NY(29), OR(7), PA(20), RI(4), VT(3), WA(11), WI(10) = 269 electoral votes (270 needed to win. If the Republican candidate can hold every McCain state and convert ALL of these from Obama – FL(29), IN(11), NC(15), NH(4), OH(18), VA(13) – (big IFs) that gives the him 269 also. That would send the election to the House of Representatives.

Mike,

It appears we're talking past each other a bit.

I never said it wasn't the job of the FedGov to provide for the common defense. I retired from the military after a full career, so it's not likely that escaped my attention. That does not mean that every dollar (or every $10 Billion for that matter) spent on defense was wisely spent, or was not spent in excess of actual defense needs. In addition to my military career I have a Masters degree in Military History, so I'm well aware that, in some areas, we had capacity that FAR exceeded the need. My point was that both Reagan and Johnson faced the "guns or butter" question and both had the same basic answer: both. I will allow that Reagan wanted "guns" for the Cold War and accepted more "butter" than he wanted to get Congressional Democrats on board, while Johnson actually wanted both (including the wildly-unconstitutional Great Society programs), but the result was the same: higher deficits. We can debate the degree Reagen felt compelled to go the route he did based on the circumstances extant at the time, but it is a simple historical fact that the national debt went up under both presidents.

I concede your point about Vietnam being "LBJ's War" more than "Kennedy's War," as it is true and does not invalidate or contradict my point. First, ramping up the Cold War was voluntary for Reagan even more than ramping up in Vietnam was for LBJ. Not to say that winning the Cold War was not the right thing to do - it certainly was - but if there was a more expensive way to do it, I can't think of it. Both men took the military actions they took for what looked like compelling reasons at the time. Your point about Kennedy's small involvement in Vietnam is true but irrelevant as a rebuttal to me, though: we had allies that we were treaty-bound to protect who were under attack from a communist enemy. I didn't say LBJ inherited the war from Kennedy anyway: we can blame the guys who signed the SEATO treaty in 1954 if you prefer, but my point still stands unblemished: LBJ inherited a shooting war in Asia (that he was treaty-bound to pursue) and Reagan did not.

As for your comment about Congress being the originator of spending bills: I agree - which is why I wrote it myself. My exact words were, "The House originates all spending bills," so I'm not sure why you think I don't know that the House originates all spending bills. My beef is with people who think a Republican president will reign in spending while a Democrat president will not: SPENDING BILLS DO NOT ORIGINATE WITH PRESIDENTS. The real action, as we both know, is in Congress, and especially the House of Representatives. But Presidents have to sign bills for them to become law (veto over-rides for budget bills are rare things indeed), and when we have Congressional Republicans in control of writing spending bills and a Democrat President in charge or vetoing them, less money is spent than any other combination of party affiliations, including Republicans in charge of everything. That's why Clinton got so much undeserved credit for being fiscally conservative - the Republican Congress didn't send him bills he liked and nobody in Washington got what they wanted, which means I got more of what I wanted - my own money to keep.

"What does Barack have going for him this time?" - RWL

95% of the blacks, 75% of Hispanics, 100% of guilty white liberals, "Occupy whatever" wastrels, the unions, the public education industry, Jon Stewart and his ilk, most of the newspapers in the country, and every damn TV channel except Fox News.

"That would send the election to the House of Representatives." -- Peter

And make the uproar over the Florida Bush v. Gore recounts look like a badminton match. Although it might be instructive to find out exactly what it looks like when the left DOES pull out all the stops.

RWL, I forgot:

being from Chicago (and given his association with ACORN and SEIU) Obama also has the voting support of cartoon characters, imprisoned felons, illegal immigrants, people who have already voted, and millions of dead people.

Army Officer (Ret)

For just one example, your exact words are, "Unlike Reagan, Johnson inherited a shooting war in Asia from his predecessor."

His predecessor was Kennedy. QED.

You quibble and squirm to justify what you said, and though you admit in the midst of it that you are incorrect, you reaffirm your errors.

I am beginning to think that trying to talk to you is a waste of time I can't spare for such nonsense.

Mike,

I stand corrected: I initially said his "his predecessor" when I should have mentioned SEATO as well. You only get half a point, though, because, as you noted, Kennedy dispatched American troops to Vietnam who were already in place when Johnson was sworn in.

My turn: how about a justification for your statement that I, "need to... pull out and reread the Constitution." The clear implication is that I wrote something that is inconsistent with a correct understanding of the Constitution, and you specified the Congressional role in the budgeting process. You now have three options:

1) Provide an example where I got it wrong in my post at February 27, 2012 at 12:35:49 PM.

2) Withdraw your statement.

3) "Quibble and squirm."

Your turn.

Army Officer (Ret)

Stop wasting my time.

You equated LBJ's spending with Reagan's. One was Constitutional and the other Unconstitutional. QED, you need to reread the Constitution.

So it's

3) "Quibble and squirm"

then. I might have known. You caught me in a trivial editing error and I admitted I made that mistake. I caught you in a much more serious error and invited you to correct it. Rather than being intellectually honest and admitting your error (as I did with mine) you changed the subject by attributing something to me that I did not say (namely: I did not equate Reagan's constitutional spending with LBJ's unconstitutional spending: I said they both presided over both types - which has the virtue of being true). For future reference, what you did is a variation of the "Straw Man Fallacy" (falsely attributing an incorrect position to your opponent and then attacking that).

You're correct about one thing, though: this has become a waste of time.

Hopefully there are other subjects where we see eye-to-eye in the future.

Democrats are ALL LIARS and are real enemies to the US Constitution that I for one took an oath to protect and defend when I joined the Marine Corps back in 1966. That oath, by the way, was an "open-ended" one, meaning that it never expires.

I sincerely believe that Justice Ginsberg should resign her seat post haste and if not should be impeached.

I also have a big problem with so many black Americans supporting the democrats. It was democrats who wanted to keep blacks in slavery. It was also democrats that were in power in the "Jim Crow" south, yet they almost all support the democrats now. Doesn't make any sense does it?

Why are people so naive as to believe that Barak Hussein Obama could sit under Pastor Wright for 20 years and not hear anything that the man preached.

Semper Fi til I die!