I just don't get the argument of eliminating the Electoral College (EC) to electing the next president by popular vote. Such a proposal completely underscores the inability of the proponents of such a change to the system to understand the rudiments our country was founded on. (If I may be so bold, it is extremely asinine and ignorant of history to propose such a change to the system.) If in the unfortunate event those proposing this change do understand, but still propose the change, then these people are dangerous and must be kept out of office in every respect. The EC is just as ingrained within the foundation of our unique, representative democracy as the ideas of separation of powers, federalism, states rights, minority rights, "checks and balances", et al! The Founders were neither short-sighted or ignorant of history. They were certainly aware of the dangers of direct democracy from the ancient Greeks and implemented the EC to avoid making the same mistakes as history did. The EC is also a way of protecting the minority --another tenet of our great nation-- from the majority.

How are the minority states represented in a popular vote system? Large states win under such a system, because the candidates would spend all of their time and energy in those states campaigning entitlements up the yin-yang, while ignoring probably 40+ states in the process. If the POTUS is supposed to represent the entire country, how do they represent the country under a popular vote system? They currently do under the EC system because every state has a say in the outcome of the election, so why change it to make a bunch of socialists and liberals, who are really the ones pushing for such a change in the system (because they just can't get over the Election 2000), happy?

If such a system were to be implemented, heaven forbid, then we might as well abolish the US Senate as well, because that too, was designed to protect smaller populated states against bigger states by giving every state equal representation in the government with two votes each. Since the smaller states are now irrelevant by  working purely by direct democracy, let's just use the House of Representatives. Just think of the possibilities! The citizenry would be able to get their entitlements and other goodies passed much more efficiently and quickly, with a lobotomized bicameral mono-cameral Legislative Branch to work through. As an added bonus, with a president elected by this popular vote, they would be able to sign into law what this pluralistic block wants with impunity.

Forget about eliminating the EC anyway because it would take a Constitutional Convention to add an amendment to the Constitution to do so. There is no way 3/4 of the states would agree to voluntarily eliminate themselves from the election process. But since the type of person who tends to favor the popular vote over the EC is generally immune to such petty things as logic and facts, they'll just keep on harping about the subject ad nauseam regardless.

I have a wild and perhaps totally crazy proposition regarding the Democrats and their seemingly sudden switch on Iraq. It all stems from this interview I read from Hugh Hewitt's blog of his interview with Victor Davis Hanson. In it, Mr Hanson talked about how the Bush administration was using the Democrat harping about "pulling out", "withdrawal", and so forth as leverage against the Iraqi government by telling them, basically, "Look, you guys had better get into gear here and get serious or Congress is going to pull out the troops and you'll be screwed!" I'm beginning to wonder if the posturing from the Democratic Leadership is really all that anti-war and anti-Iraq. How possible can it be that their rhetoric against the war in Iraq is all smoke and mirrors to put extra pressure on the Iraqi government to help convince them to get on the ball because the US will not always be there to carry the weight. It is, at least in part, a political campaign to bluff the Iraqi government into getting their act in gear. (I told you it was nuts!)

I take this view not only because of what Mr Hanson had said in his interview, but because I am under the belief that a vast majority of Democrats are neither anti-american or are hell bent on giving the US a big defeat. Sure there's a fair share of true believers (in defeat) like Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Charles Rangel, but there is also just political rhetoric and the Democrats have never actually proposed a bill to withdraw out of Iraq, despite all the talk, low poll numbers for the president's approval rating, forgetting Congress' own approval ratings (which are lower than the president's), the low poll numbers for the support in Iraq, and all of the nonsensical "Bush's war" diatribes. In fact, I'll bet it is for the same reasons they not only won't invoke articles of impeachment against Mr Bush, but they even won't allow either a bill for impeachment or defunding of Iraq to be brought up in any committee or, for that matter, the floor for a vote. The perception is that the Democrats just don't have the gusto to do either thing, but it could simply be they just don't want to. The Democrats know the seriousness of what's going on in the world, and they are certainly involved in a big gamble to pressure the Iraqi government into cooperation. The big gamble for the Democrats here is being perceived by the American people as being defeatist and the like, which would doom them as a party from being in the majority for a long, long time. It's a big gamble and the Democrats are well aware of it.

All of this, of course, is being based on my premise the Democrats are really secretly helping Mr Bush with the Iraqi government by publicly posturing themselves as having nearly given up with Iraq and push for withdrawal. Soon, General Petraeus is going to be giving his assessment of the "surge" that has been in effect for several months now and, so it is reported, he is going to say that not only is the surge having fantastic success, but that there can even be a draw down of troops. If the Democrats are changing their tune, coincidentally, with the news of a successful surge campaign, all still assuming they are secretly helping Mr Bush, their sudden turn around in outlook can also be read to mean they want to give credit where credit is due not only because they should praise success, but also because they don't want to be too negative and downplay actual positive results, since the world, especially the Iraqi government, is watching. Since the "whole" US government, the Executive and Legislative branches, is in agreement the surge is a success, albeit a cautious praise from Democrats, this can send a clear message to the Iraqi government that if they put as much effort into their side of the equation, the political one, they can achieve just as much success as the surge has. In other words, the Iraqi government can have a "surge" of their own and accomplish the benchmarks that have been set for them. If they don't, they run a terrible risk of having half of the US government, Congress, losing the confidence and patience with the Iraqi government and initiating a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

So, there you go. That's basically the crux of my thoughts, and ultimately who knows really what is going through the minds of the Democrats. It is certainly reasonable to just take the Democrats at their word, at the same time, it is also important to reason that there is probably a lot more going on behind the scenes, in both strategy and tactics, than we are aware of.One of the worst things you can do is underestimate your opponent. Anyway, you are now free to throw me into the nearest nut house. (Although, there really is no need for me to "go" to a nut house, I live in California, the world's largest insane asylum!)

It is generally useless at this point to talk about who's going to be the nominee for the presidency, but I haven't blogged in awhile, and this is an easy enough topic to squeeze up enough juice for a blog entry, so why not get on with it anyway?

In no particular order:

1. Mitt Romney: Despite his charm, he's DOA. He's just too slick to be a successful candidate for the GOP. He is especially vulnerable from a long list of positions that he's switched on over a few short years, that appear to be politically convenient. I just have never been impressed by him, except in the sense that he is one of the few candidates who actually defines the enemy we are fighting, Islamic nuts, not a verb, terrorism. The bottom line is I challenge Romney's conservative credentials.

2. Rudy Gulliani: I question his conservative credentials as well, especially over his maintaining of the sanctuary policy in NYC. However, he did do well as an executive of NY, which is a tall order in itself. He did take a big bite out of crime while he was mayor, and of course, did exceptionally well in the aftermath of 9-11. I like the guy, but I haven't quite made up my mind about him.

3. John McCain. Simply put, he's in no way a conservative. I also think he is mentally unstable. He, like that loser Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty, another RINO, were so utterly convinced down to the depths of their souls that the shamnesty bill was the right thing to do, and only until the threat of McCain's campaign doing down in flames did he decide that he was on the wrong side of the issue and has now "seen the light", so to speak. I just don't think his double-talk as merely the symptom of a typical poltician, but for something more severe. Ultimately, he's a RINO and, like a good liberal, is only as adamant as what's favorable in the polls. He's also too old.

4. Mike Huckabee: I don't know what hopes he really has, as with any of them, for getting anywhere, but I like this guy. He really does seem, just as Mr Bush did during the 2000 election, to be an genuine guy who comes from a blue collar background. (Hell, I read an article by Michael Medved that stated Huckabee was the first person in his family to graduate from high school! Unfortunately, Townhall.com has some problem with the link icon function so I can't link it.) Unfortunately, I don't know much about him other than he was governor of Arkansas.

5. Tom Tancredo: The only reason why I'm mentioning him at all is because I'm glad he's there to keep the issue of illegal immigration out in front, so as to ensure it doesn't get lost behind all of the usual election season issues: abortion, taxes, defense, Iraq, education, etc. I can't believe a major complaint I've read against him is that he isn't a good speaker. I understand, but I kind of like not listening to slick rhetoric, I've had enough of that from 93-00 during Der Schlickmeister's tenure. It's one of the reasons why I don't think Romney's the one. One thing that the, sometimes, difficult speeches by Tancredo tells me is that what he says is genuine and not rehearsed, as with something that is said very smoothly can be (not that it is necessarily).

6. Duncan Hunter: I like the fellow a lot. He is a good conservative, but he isn't getting traction for whatever reason. I guess he's not the one. But that's ok, we need him just as much in the House as we would in the Whitehouse!

7. Ron Paul: Sigh, while as of lately his rhetoric is just plain nonsense, he did have a few good points during the only debate I have been able to watch, which was the first one. I do agree with Paul that the creation of the Department of Homeland Secuirty was a bad idea because it added an extra layer of bureaucracy that, as we saw with the event of 9-11, had failed miserably. Why do we need to expand and add on top of an already terribly structured system? That's like adding a shiny new penthouse to a badly damaged building, it is both irresponsible and incompetent. Pretty much everything else he says, especially about Iraq and Afghanistan is utterly rubbish and he has Sept-10th syndrome.

8. Barack Obama: He is in no way going to become the Democratic Nominee. Philisophically, I disagree with a lot of his platform, but not everything he says is bad either. Take his stance on Pakistan, I agree that if we found out where some dirtbag terrorists were staying in Pakistan, which everyone should understand is the North-Western regions of Pakistan that is widely understood to be occupied by the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces because of its mostly tribal, and the Pakistan government was unable to take them out, that we should go in there and do it. It upsets me that such prominent conservatives as Seans Hannity spins what Obama was saying into something that is disingenuous, which was to insinuate that Obama meant just bombing Pakistan. This is sort of distortion is not something conservatives should be doing, and frankly, is a cheap shot. The same thing was done with Howard Dean. Yes, he turned out to be an actual whackjob himself, but that famous "Dean Scream", what many believe to be the catalyst to the meltdown of his campaign was in itself derived from spin. I watched the video of Dean doing the chant he did that climaxed into the scream. Yes, his face did look rather wild and angry when he did the scream, but if you watch the video again just after he screams you will see Dean laughing at himself! It was merely a rallying battle cry at the end of a badly-ending primary, but some conservative took that event and successfully spun it into something that it wasn't. Just because it turns out Dean was a whacko, does not justify the spin.

(Irony Alert: Did you know there is a hurricane coming to Florida named "Dean"?)

9. Hillary Clinton: Probably will be the nominee, but will not reach the Whitehouse. She won't because I don't believe the country will elect a woman, with all due respect, during a time of war. I also don't believe the country would ever elect such an outright socialist. I will now make a very bold statement: If she is elected president, then the country has forgotten the lessons of 9-11. Hillary Clintion is a socialist and will want to expand the government in new, permanent ways. She will try to get all sorts of entitlements passed, especially with an all too willing Democratically controlled Congress. (Irony alert to all of you who wanted to teach Republicans a lesson by getting the Democrats elected as the majority in 2006: Elections matter.) She will certainly not focus her efforts to the global war we are currently engaged in, even though she will, most likely, keep us in Iraq for years just as any Republcan would. Anyway, how would a country who elects a socialist into the presidency be preoccupied with such things as the dangers of Islamic terrorists? Socialism is such an inward directed activity, there is little attention left to notice anything else. Besides, how can her administration be very aggressive towards the likes of Islamic radicals when there is great unity between the radical left and Islam. David Horowitz has a book out outlining just that and it's called "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American left."

So now backpacks are being made to prevent the penetration of bullets, how amazing. What's most important to remember about this is not that kevlar children's backpacks are being made, but there is a company that thinks there is a market for it -- and there probably is. It just goes without saying what the heck this means culturally when companies like this spring up, but is it any wonder when there are also companies that cater to married individuals, which involves finding other married individuals, so they can have an affair together!

Not that it means much with so much entrenched liberalism in nearly every school system in the country, but some few decades ago, teenagers used to bring their rifles to school and target practice! Yes, that's right, children would bring their rifles to school, like an archer's club, and shoot at targets (which were typically scruffy freshman)! The rifles were typically .22 caliber, but the caliber size is really irrelevant. Way back, even teenagers were given enough responsibility to bring a firearm to school and nobody took notice of it.

Sigh.

I just can't help myself. I'm watching some clips of the Republican presidential debate today and Brownback has mannerisms too much of Al Gore. That's not to say he's bad or anything, I'm sure he's a really nice guy and means well. I'm speaking purely on his speech tone and tempo, and his body movements all are reminiscent of Al Gore. It's just too funny!

Just watch some clips with him in it, think of Al Gore, and tell me that Brownback and Gore are not too similar!

And Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party.

I don't know what the hell is wrong with people when they intend to take something that is very traditionally sound, cool, and admired and turn it into a complete farce by injecting the modern day warped version of what constitutes as masculine into something that used to be cool. They, the pansies of late, did this with Star Trek in the , now, canceled "Star Trek: Enterprise". It was decided the theme song for the show would not be of the standard classical music theme that has carried with every other Star Trek show since the beginning, instead, they decided to throw themselves onto a bunch of well placed spears and come up with a theme song that makes David Hasselhof's theme to "Baywatch" seem like heavy metal with some mixed in grunge rock. The producers of Enterprise wanted to reach out to a younger audience so they had a fresh generation of rock-solid fans to carry the franchise into the next couple decades. To do this, they thought they had to drum up a theme song that would reach these youths, unfortunately, what they thought constitutes as modern day "masculinity" (if that's what they were really aiming at, considering the ST franchise is almost exclusively populated by male followers) was disturbing. There is more masculinity in a troop of Girl Scouts than there was in that theme song. Absolutely ridiculous.

And now the same schlubs have done the same for Transformers. Just go to the iTunes Store and head to the Transformers soundtrack page. Scroll down the list of songs to the "Transformers Theme" by "Mute Math". Make sure to not have anything valuable, such as your computer, within arms reach before you select to listen to the song. They ruined the Transformers theme just like they ruined Star Trek's. ARRGHHH!

Look, I don't blame the band they put on the soundtrack for such a wussy song. The producers of Transformers went to them and asked them to make a theme song. I'm confident the same producers went to several other bands and asked them to do the same thing. The producers liked the one from the Mute Math people and put it into the soundtrack.

These producers, or who ever the hell put that utter bleepity bleep bleep of a song into the soundtrack should have the masculinity beaten into them, and then they should be punished for allowing such garbage to ruin a wonderful franchise.

Where's Howard Dean's scream when you need it? "YEEAAARRGGHHH!"