As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.

But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?

Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?

Where was I when Reaganism died?

With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning — think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?

Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.

I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.

I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain’s "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain’s poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.

I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I’m getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don’t like much of it.

I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won’t vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).

And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That’s right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.

On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards’ and Hillary’s speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I’m joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can’t find a militia then I’m going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.

Obama’s speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.

One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).

My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]

You often hear people say that they didn’t leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn’t leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.

And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.

Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:

The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don’t think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination.  I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let’s see if we can’t have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.

To which Advised by Wolves responds:

Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.

My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together — a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary’s side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won’t come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.

Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.

The quote of the day comes from an Investor’s Business Daily editorial:

Lamenting the healthy U.S. economy, a certain senator from New York says "it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." But the Clintons’ brand of soap always seems to be a mix of sleaze and socialism.

Pithy.

Quote of the day comes from the NY Sun:

The big news out of the most recent Democratic presidential debate was that two of the leading Democratic candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, endorsed the Bush Doctrine that is at the core of our current president’s foreign policy.

[Hillary] will be much more radical in raising taxes than Bush was in cutting them.

But more importantly,

The taxes Hillary will raise can always be repealed. But her health care changes are forever.

Read these quotes and a projection of HillaryCare’s impact on the country at Townhall.

Forbes polled voting age Americans and asked them to match attributes to presidential candidates:

It’s not clear how “activist” might describe a president. Presumably, all holders of that office would pursue their own agendas vigorously. But it does seem to indicate a perception among voters as to how engaged in important issues a candidate is, rather than simply issuing position papers or repeating a canned stump speech. At the same time, however, Gore also happens to be rated as the most boring candidate of both parties.

There’s more information at the link, but here’s the high-level data:

Democrat Sells Political Influence: South Carolina state Sen. Darrell Jackson inked a $200,000 deal with Hillary just days before announcing that he was throwing his weight behind her bid for the presidency.

Jackson had also been in talks with Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign about endorsing him and entering into a consulting contract for more than $5,000, sources said – raising questions about whether Jackson’s endorsement was bought by a higher bidder.

Speaking of Democrats and those of similar ilk, it looks like Senator McCain is poised to begin raising millions of dollars in soft money in order to make a run at the presidency. So much for the unconstitutional abomination we call McCain-Feingold.

Politics

Do you give money to the Sierra Club? If you do, you’re putting Democrats in office! The Sierra Club is planning on putting between five and ten million dollars into competitive state races this year.

What makes a liberal a liberal? Mark Goldblatt weighs in and he’s right on the money. [I know, I was one!]

Think Hillary can win? John Hawkins doesn’t, and lists The Top 8 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think.

Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice is more popular than you’d think:

When Esquire asked American men who they would invite from a list of 14 notable women to a dinner party, they chose Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – over such stars as Julia Roberts, Jennifer Aniston and Jessica Simpson.

Dinner with Condi? Sign me up!

Technorati Tags: Sierra Club,
Looney Left Wing Organizations,
Charity,
Liberals,
Progressives,
Moonbats,
Hillary Clinton,
Condoleezza Rice.

Senator Hillary Clinton recently went to a primary school in Ithaca, New York, to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand and the Senator asks him what his name is.

“Kenny.”

“And what is your question, Kenny?”

“I have three questions:

1. Whatever happened to your medical health care plan?
2. Why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?
3. Whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?”

Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.

When they resume Hillary says, “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”

A different little boy puts his hand up. Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is.

“Larry.”

“And what is your question, Larry?”

“I have 5 questions:

1. Whatever happened to your medical health care plan?
2. Why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?
3. Whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the white house?
4. Why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?
5. What happened to Kenny?”

Can someone please explain this to me:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has sponsored a tax refund for Puerto Rico residents that could pay out more than $50 million over the next 10 years.

She’s the sole sponsor of a bill letting some Puerto Rico residents — who pay no federal income tax — get child-credit refunds on their Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Hillary knows how controversial this is — her office didn’t even issue a press release about her new cause.

Hellary is gearing up for the aught-eight race with full rhetoric (from Drudge so the link won’t last long):

She believes Bush is beatable next year because his administration is “making America less free, fair, strong, smart than it deserves to be in a dangerous world.”

“We have to change direction before irreparable harm is done,” she adds.

“This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it.”

May I point out that the last president we had that shared her name (if not her bed) left us in a very bad place indeed as a result of his do-nothing policies:

1. His failure to respond swiftly or strongly (much less both) to terrorist attacks nurtured a safe environment for terrorists.
2. His failure to manage the economy resulted in a tech bubble and the dot com bust.
3. His hands-off environmental policies let (no thinning allowed!) resulted in a buildup of tinder on forest floors and the subsequent wildfires that raged through the western half of the US.
4. His failure to confront energy concerns did nothing to make us less dependent on foreign oil.
5. His failure to keep our troops equipped and compensated led to massive retirements and general demoralizing of the nation’s best.
6. His failure to respond honestly to questions asked in a legal forum led to our youth thinking that oral sex is not sex — it’s just a real friendly kind of handshake.

The litany is endless. Unfortunately the MSM would have you believe otherwise.