Maddening excuse

This blog seldom has reason to quote former Pres. Bill Clinton, but here's a line from an interview that he did over the weekend:

"I find it amazing that the Republicans who doubled the debt of the country in eight years and produced no new jobs doing it, gave us an economic record that was totally bereft of any productive result, are now criticizing (Pres. Barack Obama) for spending money."

Whether you love him or just love to hate him, the man makes a damned good point.

Kevin Madden, who served as press secretary for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, rises on the right to offer a counterpoint:

"We're now unencumbered by not having a Republican in the White House. And we can draw the line and say, 'enough is enough' when it comes to spending."

That might just be the all-time lamest excuse for partisanship that I've ever heard.

Oh, it's a plausible enough explanation, considering the present irony. But anyone who finds justification in Madden's words needs to put the Kool-Aid down -- now.

In two short sentences, the one-time Romney flack confirms what we already know -- that partisanship has crippled our government -- and thus he makes a sharp case for independence.

The GOP, facing Democratic Party majorities in the House and Senate as well as a Democrat in the Oval Office, calls itself "the loyal opposition" -- which presumes opposition. Loyal opposition is a smoke screen for contrarianism, not a synonym for independence.

The Democrats are no better, of course. The Obama administration's call for "bipartisanship" is itself an endorsement of ideological inertia. Bipartisanship demeans true independence.

Every politician who puts party loyalty before the will of The People has ceased to serve The People. And every citizen who pledges allegiance to political ideology squanders their birthright.

A nation born of independence deserves better -- from our elected representatives, and from us.

Two-vote swing?

When New York Gov. David Paterson today named Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton, he may have done Second Amendment advocates a double favor.

Rep. Gillibrand -- she's represented her state's 20th District in the U.S. House since 2006 and just won reelection -- is a blue-dog Democrat with a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association. She'll replace a senator whose gun-grabbing views match those of the president she now serves as Secretary of State.

The result of today's move may be a two-vote swing in the Senate on Second Amendment issues. With Democrats in control of Congress, and considering the Obama-Biden agenda, Senator Gillibrand couldn't have arrived at a better time.

Perhaps the most satisfying endorsements of Gillibrand's appointment have come in the form of objections from two notoriously strident anti-Second Amendment politicians: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who represents New York's 4th District (and who lobbied hard for the Senate seat awarded to Gillibrand instead), and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"I don't think someone with a 100% NRA rating should be the next senator from New York," McCarthy said. "I told the governor my feelings. I said I am strongly against (Gillibrand) and I gave him my reasons for it. Believe me, this is a personal issue for me."

Bloomberg, in a statement expressing his tepid support of the appointment, also made clear his "strong disagreement with one area of (Gillibrand's) record as a member of Congress: illegal guns."

Predictably, the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke is "disappointed" by the appointment.

Who will succeed Gillibrand in the House? Even though she won with 62% of the vote last November, New York's 20th is heavily Republican. It's said to be unlikely that Democrats will hold on to the seat, so her departure from the other body probably won't hurt the RKBA cause.

"My mother is a great hunter," Gillibrand has said. "She usually shoots our Thanksgiving turkey." Any comparisons to the painfully insubstantial Sarah Palin, however, end there. Gillibrand is an accomplished attorney, having clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, represented Philip Morris and worked as a HUD lawyer.

As a congresswoman from New York, by the way, she voted against the TARP corporate-bailout legislation -- twice.

Gillibrand never has run statewide, so it remains to be seen how she'll fare in the special election she must face in 2010. Although neither her continued presence nor her vote is assured, I believe that RKBAers can feel good about what happened in New York (of all places) today.

The death of irony

"Frankly I don't like him. I feel like he is an elitist." (Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, on Sen. Barack Obama, to CNN in July. Lady de Rothschild, a DNC member and former supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, announced recently that she's now backing Sen. John McCain. A communications mega-mogul, Lady de Rothschild has a reported net worth of $40 million; her husband, Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild of the British banking Rothschilds, has a reported family empire of $1.5 trillion.)

It gets no better

Ike & the like

Most Americans can't imagine what it's like to stare down the barrel of Hurricane Ike, now taking aim on the Texas Gulf Coast.

I know I can't.

Sure, I lived in southern New England when Gloria -- the most-hyped storm in history -- came ashore as a weak Category 2 hurricane just 20 miles south of my home in 1985. I remember walls shaking, trees falling, lights winking and the eerie calm of the eye passing overhead.

Compared to Ike, Gloria was a nursery rhyme.

Forecasters say that Ike will arrive on Galveston Island early tomorrow morning as a Category 3 hurricane. By the time it reaches the Houston metropolitan area, 40 miles inland, it may still pack a Category 2 wallop. Coastal communities are expecting a 20-foot storm surge, and some areas already are under water. Ike's cloud shield, edge-to-edge, measures a staggering 900 miles.

As I watch a different weather system drop rain outside my window, a thousand miles from Galveston, Ike is just another news story -- except that it'll interrupt 25% of America's oil-refining capacity, 20% of domestic oil production and 15% of our natural-gas production, not to mention the temporary shutdown (at least) of numerous big chemical plants.

So while I keep the people of Galveston and Houston in my thoughts, I'll be equally mindful of the storm's impact on our punch-drunk economy. We seem capable of absorbing these painful blows, provided they're thrown one at a time, but what'll we do if they start coming in flurries?

* * *

I should've bought gas last week.

I don't drive much these days, and I've let my tank (and my fuel cache) drift toward empty while watching prices fall. In just the last 24 hours, they've jumped by 20 cents a gallon around here.

Lazy, optimistic, and not terribly smart.

* * *

On Wednesday, Sen. Joe Biden said -- out loud and publicly -- that Sen. Hillary Clinton "might have been a better pick" for Sen. Barack Obama's running mate.

And yesterday, when asked by ABC's Charlie Gibson if she agrees with the "Bush Doctrine" -- the well-known policy of striking preemptively before being attacked -- Gov. Sarah Palin did her best impression of a moose in the headlights.

You just can't make this stuff up.

* * *

As I said on Wednesday, I've joined the ranks of the undecided, stepping back from my decision to vote for McCain-Palin. Reaction from readers, friends and family has been strong, to say the least, and overwhelmingly negative.

For the most part, I've been told that not voting for McCain-Palin would be "stupid" -- that's what we say, of course, about people who disagree with us. Democrats say it about Republicans. Conservatives say it about liberals. We have bookstores full of titles like Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.

No wonder our country is stuck in reverse.

The 2008 presidential election will be my ninth, so I'm not exactly naive about the dynamics of a close race. I know that if I don't vote for McCain-Palin, I could be handing the equivalent of two votes to Obama-Biden -- especially significant in the so-called "battleground state" of Ohio, thanks to the Electoral College.

The McCain-Palin campaign's intellectual bankruptcy finally drove me to question the wisdom of casting a "defensive vote" against Obama-Biden, especially in light of my clear disagreement with the GOP ticket on issues like abortion rights, the U.S. occupation of Iraq and fiscal policy. I realized that I'd become part of an opposition flock of red sheep, and I'm not sure that's the best way for me to exercise my sacred privilege on November 4th.

If I do decide to vote for a minor-party candidate, I'd be leaving the flock in pursuit of a far greater good, as I perceive it, acknowledging that an Obama presidency isn't the most sinister threat to my country's future.

In terms of sentiment, I'd be standing with a majority of Americans who believe that the two dominant parties have broken more than they've fixed. In terms of action, however, I'd be decidedly in the minority, and frankly, that's a scary place to be. But as natural-gas wildcatter John Masters said,

"You have to recognize that every 'out-front' maneuver is going to be lonely. But if you feel entirely comfortable, then you're not far enough ahead to do any good. That warm sense of everything going well is usually the body temperature at the center of the herd. Only if you're far enough ahead to be at risk do you have a chance for large rewards."

(It occurs to me that political poseurs McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden might want to consult Mr. Masters before invoking buzzwords like "maverick" or "change.")

We need fundamental and revolutionary change, not the cosmetic, dime-store variety proposed by the two big campaigns. It won't happen in a single election, but it has to start somewhere.

It might as well start with me.

* * *

Less than 36 hours from now, my #5 Ohio State Buckeyes will play the top-ranked USC Trojans in the Los Angeles Coliseum.

OSU running back "Beanie" Wells, arguably the team's best player, is still nursing an injured foot and has been listed as "doubtful" for the game. USC presents enough of a challenge with Wells in the lineup, and if he's on the sidelines...

I'm going to end this post here -- it's damned near impossible to type with all my fingers crossed.

Makeup test

Ok, class, let's review.

Ad-libbed during her speech at the Republican National Convention and repeated countless times since then, Gov. Sarah "Hockey Mom" Palin has said,

"You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

At a campaign event yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama said this about Gov. Palin's and Sen. John McCain's talk of "reforming" Washington:

"You can put lipstick on a pig -- it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change' -- it's still gonna stink."

Predictably, McCain-Palin surrogates -- and a stunningly large number of otherwise misogynistic conservatives -- are waxing apoplectic over Sen. Obama "playing the gender card."

Pull-eeze.

To start with, "putting lipstick on a pig" is a common colloquial expression, used often in political rhetoric to demean a proposal lacking credibility. Sen. McCain invoked it when he criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's universal-healthcare plans.

Besides, the first to equate Gov. Palin to an ill-tempered quadruped wearing face paint was the Governor herself.

And to anyone who claims to be defending Gov. Palin's feminine honor, but who wouldn't have done likewise for Sen. Clinton: Sit down and shut up.

The longer Gov. Palin struts and frets upon our national stage, the clearer it becomes that Sen. McCain's choice of a running mate was a cynical one. That cynicism is well-founded, of course -- for proof, look no further than today's hot political topic.

The people now falling at the feet of Gov. Palin are the same ones who disparage others for joining Sen. Obama's "cult of personality" -- just as superficial, equally impressionable -- making Sen. McCain's cynical choice look positively brilliant.

Red or blue, sheep are sheep.

For me, the test is this: Do I want to be associated, in any way, with a mindless flock? I mean, I can tolerate the occasional insult to my intelligence, as partial payment for some greater good, but I have my limits.

I've said previously that I won't vote for the gun-grabbing, entitlement-happy Obama-Biden ticket, and I stand by that. I've also said that I favor, reluctantly and by default, McCain-Palin.

As of today, count me among the undecided. Somebody alert the pollsters.

I will vote on November 4th. And as much as I'd hate to squander this precious American right on a minor-party candidate with no shot at winning, I'm going to begin researching what I've been ignoring -- starting with Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr.

Pas de Dupes

Not long ago, Sen. John McCain's campaign mantra was, "It's about experience."

"Nonsense," came the familiar reply from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign. "It's all about judgment."

Then Sen. Obama named Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, touting -- you guessed it -- his 36 years' experience in the U.S. Senate.

Last Friday, after picking Gov. Sarah Palin, the McCain campaign was forced to downplay her insubstantial résumé -- suddenly, it's her judgment that matters.

It's as if the campaigns got together, swapped talking points and kept going. Over the last few days, it's been especially embarrassing to watch talking heads for the Republican ticket, doing their best Vinnie Barbarino, pretending that no one remembers months of strident criticism of Sen. Obama's lack of experience -- both by Sen. McCain and, during the primaries, by Sen. Hillary Clinton.

If the contradictions are so obvious, then, how can the campaigns expect us to buy what they're selling?

Because we do -- every time.

Most of us are under the spell of party affiliation or crippled by ideology. We ascribe credibility based on whether an (R) or a (D) appears beneath the moving image. When one of those mechanized surrogates pops up in front of us, we listen carefully to how they're introduced -- "conservative," "liberal," or "supporter of."

As long as it's someone who shares our ideology, it doesn't matter if their rhetoric insults any reasonable person's intelligence -- we remain numb to it. When someone with the "wrong" philosophy says something that (heaven forbid) actually makes sense, we're deaf to it.

What the hell is wrong with us?

More than ever before, this year's presidential campaign is a grand dance for fools, and we're all invited -- but don't blame the candidates for hosting the ball. They're in the business of doing what works, and history has shown that blatant manipulation works just fine on our simple-minded electorate.

Maybe it's best if we just stop thinking about it -- after all, that's what we do best.

The candidates, in fact, are counting on it.

All in

Oh, John, you wacky maverick.

The media are reporting that Sen. McCain is about to introduce Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.

On issues that matter to me, Gov. Palin is an NRA Life member and believes in free-market capitalism. She's an avid off-road-vehicle enthusiast. So far, so good.

Conservatives should love her, since her stated positions generally are in-line with right-wing ideology. As a woman -- and this certainly played into Sen. McCain's calculus -- she may attract some disaffected PUMA-crats.

Prior to taking office in 2006, 44-year-old Gov. Palin served four years on the city council of small Wasilla, Alaska and six more as mayor. After a losing bid for Lieutenant Governor, she was appointed Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

That's it. I think it's safe to say that the McCain campaign's indictment of Sen. Barack Obama as unacceptably young and inexperienced is off the table.

One more thing -- Gov. Palin currently is under investigation for abuse of power in the dismissal of the state's Commissioner of Public Safety.

For "scorecard conservatives," Gov. Palin is a great choice. For anyone who wants Sen. McCain to win on November 4th, maybe not so much.

Overload & out

I stayed up past my bedtime last night to watch the close of the Democratic Party's convention. Now this morning, I'm still sorting through what I saw and heard -- between the event itself and its historic significance, it was a lot to absorb.

Before going any further here, I'm compelled to mention the television commercial that Sen. John McCain's campaign began running before Sen. Obama's speech.

No attacks, no name-calling. No Paris and no podium. Speaking softly and looking directly into the camera, Sen. McCain said simply this:

"Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, 'Congratulations.' How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we’ll be back at it. But tonight, Senator, job well done."

On a night when he could've tried (probably in vain) to wrest the spotlight from the Democrats by leaking the name of his running mate, Sen. McCain took the High Road exit. His televised message was generous, the classiest of class acts.

Likewise to you, Sen. McCain, well done.

Last night's extravaganza will redefine the term "spectacle," political and otherwise.

Those big-tent Democrats rented the biggest tent in Denver -- Mile-High Stadium, which eventually would accommodate an estimated 85,000 -- and it wasn't big enough. The lines of people waiting to get in reportedly stretched for six miles. Far away, in places like New York City's Times Square, thousands more gathered to watch the event on television.

By comparison, Sen. McCain is said to be struggling to draw 10,000 for a rally today in Dayton, Ohio, where he's expected to announce his running mate.

So when you hear the GOP poke fun at the "Temple of Obama," the next time some surrogate pooh-poohs Sen. Obama's celebrity and oratory, know this: The Republican Party would sell its collective soul, at wholesale prices, for the conservative equivalent of Barack Obama -- wildly popular, smart, articulate and disciplined, a candidate who both inspires an audience and expands the base.

Over the last 25 years, professionally, I've written my share of speeches and have delivered a few of my own. Suspending my political preferences for an hour last night, I had the privilege of enjoying what I consider to be the best political speech I've ever heard.

Sen. Obama's "A More Perfect Union" address could lay claim to being better rhetorically, arguably a classic, but his acceptance speech checked every box and pushed every button. Under unimaginably high expectations, he delivered with an extraordinary mastery of medium and message.

While I wasn't persuaded, I was impressed -- Sen. Obama's performance was, in a word, brilliant, and the Democrats have every right to be pleased (and no doubt relieved) about how their nominating convention turned out. Sen. McCain and his party have their work cut out for them.

Around midnight, I traipsed down to the kitchen for a snack and found my older spawn in the living room, TiVo remote in-hand, intently watching a replay of Sen. Obama's speech.

It made me smile.

He's just 16, which means that he has more than politics on his hormone-charged plate these days, but the fact that he's interested in this campaign is a very, very good thing.

In less than two years, he'll be expressing his choices as a voter. Whatever those choices may be, and whether or not they mirror my own, today I take pride in knowing that he's already distinguishing himself from the masses -- because he's paying attention.

Conventional wisdom

For all their high profile and national importance, political conventions are undeniably hokey affairs -- and there's nothing as corny as the roll call of states.

That said, I absolutely love the roll calls.

A select few delegates, many of whom seldom (if ever) speak publicly, get to trumpet their state's endearing qualities -- from snow-capped mountains to gumbo, from native sons to sketchy claims to the same -- before announcing their delegation's votes.

It's a chance to say, "This is my home, I'm damned proud of it, and I'm gonna tell you why."

The Democrats just finished the formal nomination of Sen. Barack Obama to be the party's nominee, and they did it in unconventional fashion. The states and territories, in alphabetical order, began casting their votes. California and Illinois passed. New Hampshire and New Jersey apparently got the "unity" memo and went unanimously for Sen. Obama. New Mexico yielded back to Illinois, which yielded to New York.

Sen. Hillary Clinton then stepped to the New York delegation's microphone and entered a motion to suspend the roll call and nominate Sen. Obama by acclamation.

Looks like she got the memo, too.

The motion carried. The arena celebrated. The PUMAs sulked.

While I can't be swayed to vote for Sen. Obama come November, I also can't be ignorant of the historical significance of his nomination. As a white kid growing up in the 1960s, I saw the civil-rights movement reach its crescendo. I was a curious and politically aware sixth-grader when Dr. King was assassinated. Seated in front of my family's black-and-white Zenith, I watched television coverage of violent race riots.

I was born early enough to see "Whites Only" signs when my family vacationed in the South, and now I've lived long enough to see a black man win his party's nomination for the office of President.

That's the best kind of convention drama I can imagine.

For this nation -- and for this patriot -- it's a proud moment.

End game (or not)

Speaking to the Democratic Party Convention last night, Sen. Hillary Clinton pitched lots of chum into the water -- from two separate buckets.

With her right hand, she dutifully shoveled pro-Obama and anti-McCain bait to the party faithful. Her left, however, was busy tossing bloody crumbs to her PUMAs -- not enough to satisfy their hunger, but more than enough to keep them hanging around the boat.

Sen. Clinton's address began selflessly enough, a full-frontal embrace of Sen. Barack Obama, but again and again she waxed wistful about her failed campaign. She repeatedly there-thered her "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits."

"You taught me so much, and you made me laugh, and, yes, you even made me cry. You allowed me to become part of your lives, and you became part of mine."

There are no stop signs on Memory Lane, and so Sen. Clinton's interminable "farewell tour" rolls on. Can't you just feel the catharsis?

(snif, sob)

Standing in a fractious climate of her own making, she paid only lip service to party unity. Take this attempt at cat-herding:

"I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for...all the people in this country who feel invisible?"

Now there's a question she shouldn't have begged.

It was answered on behalf of all PUMAs by tearful delegate Anne Price-Mills, who was interviewed by CNN after the speech:

"You know that was presidential. You know it!"

"I need (Sen. Obama) to remember that there were 18 million voices that recognized the potential of that woman to lead this country and I don’t think he’s done that."

Ms. Price-Mills went on angrily to assure the world that while she won't vote for Sen. John McCain, she may well stay home on November 4th -- unless, presumably, Sen. Obama dumps Sen. Joe Biden for Sen. Clinton.

Maybe Michelle and Barack could re-name the Obama daughters Hillary and Chelsea...

Then again, this isn't really about Hillary Clinton anymore, is it? The monster she created now needs its master only for inspiration -- and again last night, she delivered.

Sen. McCain must be pleased.

Smells like...

I'm not really a YouTube kind of guy, but this is something I just had to share.



"Because it would feel kind of sexist to call it a 'hissy fit.'"

Priceless.

Epiphany

The Associated Press is reporting that Sen. Hillary Clinton is expected to release her delegates to Sen. Barack Obama at a reception in Denver this Wednesday.

Certainly not today -- not before the convention begins. Not last week, not last month. And heaven forbid, not two months ago in Unity, New Hampshire, when she endorsed Sen. Obama.

Wednesday.

No cause for alarm, however -- as long as PUMA shows up in Denver, drama is still on the convention schedule.

I can hardly wait.

Denver drama?

The anticipation is killing me.

When Democrats gavel their convention into session tomorrow, there will be nothing left to decide. Primary and caucus voters chose Sen. Barack Obama, and he picked Sen. Joe Biden -- done.

It's a climate that begs for acclamation, if not outright coronation. This convention has every reason to be an unrestrained show of unity, a week-long party the likes of which Denver hasn't seen since John Elway's helicopter.

Ah, but a pooper lurks behind the punch bowl, and it goes by the name of PUMA -- Party Unity My Ass.

PUMA and its partners-in-denial are devoted to delusion, committed to ensuring that "Hillary Clinton gets the nomination of the Democratic Party at the Denver Convention." Consequences be damned, of course.

Even Sen. Clinton herself, along with surrogates like Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, is promoting the "catharsis" that will be enjoyed by her supporters when her name is placed into nomination.

Apparently this is supposed to be an enormous psychotherapy session, not a political convention, intended to knit the deep emotional wounds inflicted by backing a candidate who didn't get enough votes to secure the nomination of her party.

My first reaction to this sort of orchestrated tantrum is, "Just stop it!" -- when you're dead, as the saying goes, you should have the decency to fall down. I've had it up to here with the whiny indignation of Lanny Davis, Harold Ickes and Kiki McLean. Get over it, already.

And then I come to my senses.

First of all, the more contentious the Democrats' convention, the more damaged the Obama-Biden ticket, and the less likely we are to see four years (or eight) of entitlements-on-steroids and the trampling of our Second Amendment rights.

Never mind the issues, though -- just the sheer entertainment potential of an estrogen-charged revolt in Denver is tantalizing. Will there be a walkout? Will there be a second ballot? Will former Pres. Bill Clinton's faint praise for Sen. Obama damn the nominee to defeat? Will every delegate get a "Participant" ribbon?

The mind reels.

As embarrassing as it'd be to see thousands of adults behaving like a bunch of incorrigible three-year-olds, I enthusiastically endorse a furiously raucous Democratic Party convention. Melodrama would be ideal; drama will suffice.

Short of all-out fistfights, I'd be satisfied if the party spends the next seven days planting big, wet, sloppy kisses on Sen. Clinton's ass -- I mean, how else will her poor, suffering supporters be able to begin the healing process?

Catharsis -- catch it!

Storm front

With three National Rifle Association members in our household, we get all of the organization's magazines. This month's issues seemed unusually hefty when they arrived in yesterday's mail.

I picked up my copy of American Rifleman and began leafing through it. Advertising sales are good, it appears, and the editorial content is substantial this time around. In all three publications is a two-page spread exhorting me to oppose the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama, complete with six (count 'em) corresponding tear-out cards for me to distribute to my fellow gun owners.

Anyone who values our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms should fear the prospect of an Obama presidency. Unlike typical election-year fear mongering, however, the NRA's campaign is based on facts -- drawing from both Sen. Obama's record and his rhetoric.

The association's latest volley is "Barack Obama's Ten-Point Plan to 'Change' The Second Amendment":

Ban the use of firearms for home defense.

Pass federal laws eliminating your Right to Carry.

Ban the manufacture, sale & possession of handguns.

Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.

Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting & sport shooting.

Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%.

Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.

Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.

Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.

Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court & Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

That list is distilled from "On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!" (pdf), which should be required reading for every American gun owner. The expanded version includes 16 citations validating the NRA's pessimism.

Supporters of Sen. Obama will counter with what he's said on the campaign trail -- "I am not going to take guns away from anybody" -- but the NRA isn't fooled by such pandering, and neither am I.

This week, in advance of the major parties' conventions, attention has turned to the nominees' choice of running mates -- the so-called "veepstakes" -- and both campaigns are making sure that certain names get a lot of chatter. For gun owners who need another reason to oppose Sen. Obama's candidacy, here it is:

Joe Biden.

It's by no means certain that Sen. Obama will tap Sen. Biden, but reportedly he's a leading candidate -- and if he were to get the nod, it'd be the worst possible news for Second Amendment supporters.

Remember the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that ran from 1994 to 2004? We've taken to calling it the "Clinton Gun Ban," but it'd be more accurate to call it the "Biden Gun Ban" -- because Sen. Biden, not Pres. Bill Clinton, was the architect of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, of which the ban was a part.

Under an Obama-Biden administration and with a Congress controlled by a Democratic majority, it wouldn't be long before we'd see an even more oppressive ban, among other sweeping restrictions. Gun ownership wouldn't be outlawed, per se, but it'd be regulated to the brink of prohibition.

Waving Heller in our elected representatives' faces would be futile -- the Supreme Court left room for "reasonable restrictions," and our legislature runs on a much faster track than our courts. By the time a challenge would rise to the high court, the damage will have been done.

So, to be blunt about it, if Sen. Obama wins in November, we're screwed. If he brings Sen. Biden along for the ride, we're colossally screwed. And although I'm no disciple of Sen. John McCain, I'll hold my nose and vote for the GOP nominee.

Speaking of Sen. McCain and the veepstakes, by the way, if he were to choose either Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman or former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge (who's pro-choice), he'd virtually ensure an Obama victory. Sen. McCain already has a slippery grip on his "conservative base," and he'd surely lose that grip with either of those choices. On November 4th, miffed conservatives would stay home in droves.

By the first of September, probably sooner, we should know what each party's ticket will look like. If it's Obama-Biden or Obama-Clinton versus either McCain-Lieberman or McCain-Ridge, I have a pretty good idea of what we'd do here in the KintlaLake household -- raise some cash and buy what'll be unavailable or prohibitively expensive under an Obama administration.

'I don't think this damn thing is safe'

If you're inclined to cast your lot with Sen. John McCain, here's a question: Am I the only one who's reaching for nose clips and a personal flotation device?

As I've said before, I favor Sen. McCain -- not out of conviction or confidence, but by default. After critically considering the alternative, especially on entitlements and gun control, I can't bring myself to vote for Sen. Barack Obama.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

Press me further and I'll even suggest that Sen. Obama has demonstrated a better aptitude for leadership and a far better grasp of the issues.

The Republican Party, which historically owns matters of fiscal policy, will nominate a guy who's admitted to being clueless about economic issues. And despite Sen. McCain's war-hero status, the presumptive nominee talks more like a cocky fly-boy than a Commander-in-Chief, risking the GOP's customary advantage on national security.

Sen. McCain has his computer-illiterate, old-guy-next-door demeanor and Sen. Obama has his cultural savvy and polished rhetoric. The Democratic Party's presumptive nominee is too inexperienced to lead, according to his long-tenured Republican opponent, but every day I watch Sen. Obama handle himself with more aplomb.

For Sen. McCain and his supporters, none of this is good.

Whenever I see the candidates these days, it's clear that the rigors of campaigning have taken a toll on both. Especially over the last two weeks, Sen. McCain looks to me like he just went 12 rounds -- and lost. I don't care how old and spry his mother is, he's off his sharp, straight-talking game. Way off.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but seriously, can you picture this guy after four years in the Oval Office? Do I hear eight?

The wearier Sen. McCain gets, the less of him I see. Oh, that's John McCain behind the microphone, all right, but I'll be damned if I hear the spirited candidate of even six months ago.

Instead, it seems, he's become a surrogate for his surrogates, a regular Charlie McCarthy, spouting shallow right-wing chestnuts and little else.

Equating Sen. Obama with Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears? Handing out "Obama Energy Plan" tire gauges to the press? Expecting me to tremble at the mention of "tax-and-spend liberal"?

Again, this isn't good.

Without a doubt, Sen. McCain's biggest hurdle is President George W. Bush. I don't think he can put enough distance between his campaign and the bumbling Bush administration without discarding conservative and loyalist voters -- and surrogates -- that he desperately needs.

For all the ineptitude and dysfunction, I still see a couple of ways for Sen. McCain to win.

The first would be a contentious Democratic Party convention, and that seems more and more likely. Just today, Sen. Hillary Clinton hinted that she wants her delegates-in-denial to be heard in Denver, and that she hasn't yet decided if she'll ask that her name be placed into nomination. Especially if Sen. Obama makes a misstep (as perceived by wailing Clintonites) in choosing a running mate, he might lose support he'd never get back.

Sen. McCain's second chance for victory is Americans' ultimate reluctance to elect a black man with a foreign-sounding name to the office of President -- and honestly, just saying that disgusts me. My natural pessimism about human nature leads me to believe that some voters still suspect that Sen. Obama is an unpatriotic Muslim socialist -- enough, maybe, to swing the election in Sen. McCain's favor.

I sure hope it doesn't come to that.

I plan to vote for Sen. John McCain on November 4th. Considering my choices, it's what I have to do.

And no, I'm not happy about that -- not one bit.


(About the title of this post: Groucho Marx used to tell the story of a man who was about to be hanged. A priest asked the man, "Have you any last words to say, before we spring the trap?" To which the condemned man replied, "Yes, I don't think this damn thing is safe.")

Where do we stand?

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Democratic Party nominee Al Gore made no bones about where he stood on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Both his rhetoric and his record threatened to gut the Second Amendment and disarm law-abiding Americans.

Gun owners needed a rallying cry, and we got it from the late Charlton Heston. Speaking to the National Rifle Association on May 20, 2000, he said this:

"For the next six months, Al Gore is going to smear you as the enemy. He will slander you as gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America.

"Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding gun owner in America to register to vote and show up at the polls on election day.

"As we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those words again for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands!'"

Fortunately, at least on this issue, Mr. Gore was denied the Presidency. And while 1994's Clinton Gun Ban was allowed to sunset ten years later, where do law-abiding gun owners stand today?

Given a choice between the major parties' presumptive nominees, it seems that Sen. Barack Obama represents the greater threat -- but Sen. John McCain is preferable only by default.

Sen. McCain has said that he doesn't own a gun. He hasn't shown himself to be a staunch advocate for Second Amendment rights. And his much-ballyhooed record of "reaching across the aisle" often puts him in league with gun-grabbing legislators.

It may be tempting to favor the Republican candidate, but color me skeptical -- very skeptical.

There are other dynamics to consider. A U.S. President's ability to impose his agenda requires both strong leadership and a sympathetic Congress. In that light, neither candidate is encouraging.

Sen. McCain exerts leadership almost exclusively through collaboration with dissenting interests. Much of Congress already is receptive to some form of gun control. Dangerous compromises would be all but certain.

I predict that Sen. Obama, on the other hand, would lead from the front. As President and de facto leader of his party, he could constitute the final element of a perfect gun-control storm. Against a Pres. Obama and like-minded allies like Sen. Biden (the real engineer of the Clinton Gun Ban), Mr. Gore, Rep. McCarthy, Ms. Brady, the Clintons and assorted Kennedys, our Second Amendment rights could crumble.

With that as a political backdrop, we stand exactly where we stood when Charlton Heston exhorted us eight years ago -- impatient patriots, committed to defending our Constitutional rights, not deferential but defiant.

Μολὼν λαβέ.

Queen of Denial

I've been ruminating all day on what to say about Sen. Hillary Clinton's narcissistic performance last night. I'm not at a loss for words -- there's just so much to work with.

Perhaps it's best if I leave it to CNN's Jack Cafferty.

"Anyone who thought Hillary Clinton would admit defeat and graciously make her exit to begin healing the party wasn’t paying attention last night.

"Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination, not by a delegate or two. The superdelegates poured into his camp all day and all night and made a bold statement. 'He’s our guy.' But when the sun came up this morning, she is still there.

"If Obama wants a hint what it will be like if she is the vice president, last night should give him a pretty good idea. Refusing to concede, she chose instead to try to steal the spotlight from him on one of the most historic nights in our history. Barely acknowledging his accomplishment, she went on in her speech at Baruch College like nothing had changed. It was pathetic.

"Earlier in the day, she let it be known she is interested in the Vice Presidential nomination. Like it’s her option. This puts enormous pressure on him to agree or risk further angering her dwindling supporters. Not that some of them could get any angrier.

"Barack Obama at this moment has a much bigger problem with Hillary Clinton than he does with John McCain. You would think her advisers and supporters would start to be embarrassed by her behavior at some point.

"At a time when our country should be celebrating a quantum leap forward in healing our racial divisions, Hillary Clinton is ruining the party -- a spoiled child who refuses to go when told, 'It’s bedtime.'"

The words "pathetic" and "spoiled child" ring loud and true -- and as far as I'm concerned, that goes double for her wailing, hand-wringing supporters.

Cannibalism on display

I've said it before, and it's time to say it again:

The Democrats are eating their young.

Watching today's marathon pissing match among members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee -- with supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton doing virtually all of the pissing -- has been a real treat.

Puerile tantrums from the likes of Harold Ickes guarantee that it'll take Herculean spin to salvage party unity, even the perception of unity. And no one should be surprised if Sen. Clinton keeps kicking this dead ass all the way to the convention in Denver.

Hoosiers & Tar Heels

Two days ago, skeptical about voters' ability to see through Sen. Hillary Clinton's pandering, I made a pessimistic prediction:

"(Sen. Clinton will) likely win Indiana and she'll make it close in North Carolina."

I'm glad to say that yesterday's results proved quite the opposite -- Sen. Barack Obama trounced Sen. Clinton 56%-42% in North Carolina and lost the Indiana primary by just two points.

I'm seldom encouraged by our sheepish electorate, but today I am.

Because Sen. Obama is addicted to entitlements and has a record of undermining American citizens' Second Amendment rights, he won't get my vote in November. But for the sake of our country and the upcoming conversation about its future, I believe it's in our national interest that he wins the Democratic Party nomination.