The past year we have all read and listened to media pundits telling us which candidates were likely to be the front runners.


As the primaries begin to loom large, voters in both parties have begun analyzing positions and listening to speeches and debates. Not surprisingly, the "front runners" have begun to drop in the polls in the primary states. Clinton and Giuliani had been the chosen ones. Things are becoming murky.


The leftist media elites have continued to cling to their misplaced and delusional nostalgia about the Clinton glory days, ignoring the fact that voters may have different memories. HRod hoped the country would repress the memories of her standing by her philandering husband and blaming conservatives for the "lies" that were distracting him from doing his job. (Oh, if only he had worried more about his job and less about...) She hoped they would forget about her health care debacle, her luck with investments and even her inability to find papers that were sitting on her coffee table. She hopes the voters are stupid.


These same media elites would prefer a President Giuliani to a President Romney, or President Huckabee or a President McCain. For months, Huckabee and Romney couldn't get play from the major national media. It was Giuliani, Giuliani, Giuliani... If you were a Democrat, which Republican candidate most reflects your positions? Probably a pro gun control, pro-choice Giuliani. Now, as voters pay attention to their local primaries, things are finally getting interesting. Giuliani has been put on a pedestal by the media for obvious reasons. While he handled September 11th wonderfully, and clearly shows great leadership, he is not the typical conservative. His moderate views play better to moderates and liberals than to conservatives.

The media elites hope to influence the Republican process to pick a nominee. Anyone who watched the YouTube debates should be aware of this truth. The old media has more influence in a macro world than in the micro world. Primaries bring it all home.


Conservative voters need to be cautious of the subtle manipulation attempted by the press on the candidates. Huckabee has some interesting positions but has some red flags as well. His religious background attracts Evangelical Christians but will scare those on the left who fear religion in government. His training as a minister creates a serious campaign issue, particularly if he ultimately captures the nomination. Huckabee must address the fears and distortions of his record as a minister in much the same way Romney has to address concerns about his embrace of Mormonism. Romneys speech was a start but there will be more questions to come if he continues to rise in the primary contests.

Has Huckabee's growing support been encouraged by the press because many on the left believe that he has no shot of winning the ultimate race? Is the real threat to liberals Romney? Has the press tried to shut down media coverage of Romney to limit the possibility he becomes the nominee?

On the Democratic side, the candidates are also struggling for the lead. HRod is actually less predictably liberal than Obama- which is why the Illinois Democrat is gaining in the polls. HRod and her hubby are always willing to compromise principles when it is politically expedient. The far lefties don't appreciate that. Also, HRod has a stern, yet whiny, edge that is not attractive to voters. Perhaps she should practice the Elvis-like smirk perfected by our former President. Any candidate who has higher negatives than positives has a pretty serious problem.

Additionally, if the former President continues to make appearances like the recent one on Charlie Rose, HRod will need to reevaluate his "help" and make some decisions about whether or not he can be kept on a short leash.


So while HRod watches her ship begin to sink, her anger rises. Obama should watch out: things will get ugly if he becomes much more popular.


Sadly, for Democrats, their bench is not full of talent. Obama may be interesting, but his resume hardly seems Presidential:

• He was a community organizer in the mid 80s



• He graduated from law school in 1991 and practiced as a civil rights attorney for a couple of years



• He spent eight years in the Illinois state Senate



• He has been a U.S. Senator for almost 3 years (at least 2 of those years he has been busier campaigning than he has been working for the people of Illinois.)

Wow! It's no wonder he has maintained his youthful exuberance!

At the risk of being vilified for noting that fact that people seem afraid to mention: If he were a White guy running with his background he would have he would be laughed at and stopped at the door. If he were a White guy saying exactly the same things, doing the same things, would Oprah be standing behind him? Even if one supports Affirmative Action at some level, reasonable people should agree that the principles should NOT be applied to the most important position in the world.


After Obama, the Democrats are left with John Edwards, whose hair is great but ... Then there are the people who have been unlucky enough to share the debate stage because they needed to have warm bodies make things a little more interesting: Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Of the candidates, Bill Richardson seems to be one of the most qualified of the pack but his politics are not left enough for the Democratic base. His positions seem all over the place but actually may verge on Libertarian. A smart Democrat would draw him in as VP to add credibility to the ticket and attract the valuable moderates in the middle.

The Democrats are faced with choosing between the corruption of the past rearing it's ugly head and the inexperience of a guy who has learned how to talk an interesting talk.

Conversely, as Republican voters start to examine the positions of the candidates, they are faced with several strong choices. The Republican bench has more depth and as a result the fight will be more interesting and possibly last longer. It could also be bloodier.

Here's hoping for decorum as these candidates moderate their positions in their quest to run the big race.

The U.S. government issued a National Intelligence Estimate report yesterday that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. (click here for report)

The report is not clear as to whether Iran has permanently and completely stopped its quest or whether the cessation of a nuclear program is temporary. The report, which is being hailed as proof that the Bush administration has been wrong about its approach to Iran, actually supports the Bush approach to Iran.

The key findings of the estimate:

• The NIE is "moderately confident" Tehran has not restarted the program.
• The NIE expresses moderate to high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear program.
• The NIE assessment: Tehran stopped the program in response to international pressure.
• The NIE has low confidence that Iran has at least some weapons-usable fissile material.
• The NIE asserts the likelihood that Iran would use centrifuge enrichment to produce fissile material it the country does attempt to build a nuclear weapons program.
• The NIE has established that Iran made significant progress installing centrifuges in Natanz in 2007.
• The NIE acknowledges it is technically possible for Iran to have enough Highly Enriched Uranium for a weapon in late 2009.
• Intelligence estimates that Iran may have the capability of producing a weapon sometime between 2010 - 2015.
• The NIE has established that Iran has continued its civilian uranium enrichment program.
• The NIE notes that since the fall of 2003 Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications that may be of use in a nuclear weapon program.
• The NIE has determined that Tehran has taken a cost-benefit approach to its nuclear quest. This supports the notion that international pressure may be enough to eliminate Iran as a nuclear threat.
• The NIE acknowledges that any current decision by Iran to halt its nuclear program is inherently reversible.
• The NIE has moderate confidence that Iran would use covert facilities to produce HEU.
• The NIE is highly confident that Iran will not be technically capable of producing a weapon until 2015.
• The NIE is highly confident that Iran has the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon if it decides to do so.

While many in opposition to Bush seem to be declaring this report proof of failure in Iran, I wonder if they have actually read the whole report. (It is not long, so cliffs notes and talking points should not be necessary for those who can read...)

My take on the report:

• The U.S. presence in Iraq had a clear impact on the decisions made by Tehran.
• The international pressure credited by the NIE are the result of the clear positions taken by the Bush administration to hold Tehran accountable for any missteps it might decide to take.
• Iran has carefully managed its ongoing efforts to maintain its nuclear potential by utilizing covert facilities and civilian capabilities.
• Iran's continued development of centrifuges is a clear indication of its long term aspirations.
• The estimates that Iran will be nuclear capable by 2010-2015 despite the claim that no program currently exists will be changed dramatically if Iran chooses to actively restart the program.
• The continued and constant pressure on Iran to avoid the pursuit of nuclear capability cannot waiver.

People like Senator Kennedy ought to be ashamed for insinuating that the Bush approach has been irresponsible. It has been the pressure placed on Iran by the Bush Administration that has led us to this point. Kennedy and his democratic cohorts should praise the success of the policies on Iran and pledge to maintain the pressure on Iran indefinitely.

The attempt to politicize this situation, and misrepresent the findings of the report, does nothing to promote the security of the United States.

The security of the United States should be the number one priority for all of our congressional leaders, party politics aside.

Gillian Gibbons has shown the world what an optimist looks like. In the wake of a difficult situation, she has come out smiling and humbled. (click here for article)

After Muslim fanatics over reacted to the innocent act of naming a teddy bear Muhammad and had her jailed and then found guilty of "insulting Islam" she not only apologizes but goes out of her way to praise and compliment the people of Sudan.

Her point should be well taken. While thousands of fanatics demanded her execution, the vast majority of people in Sudan had nothing to do with the extremism shown by her jailers and the judge who found her guilty.

Hopefully, moderate Muslims around the world will stand in support of Gibbons to demonstrate their reasoned approach to interacting with non-Muslims who are not aware of the intricacies of their religion.

Those in Sudan should thank Gibbons for her generous and forgiving response to her arrest and incarceration. Gibbons has even gone so far as to encourage others to consider teaching in Sudan, saying "I know of a lovely school that needs a new Year Two teacher."

While we should all appreciate her upbeat attitude, the people of Sudan should not be surprised if the search for good teachers has become slightly more difficult. School administrators should be sure, in the future, to provide comprehensive education on rules of Islam to non-Muslim teachers who offer to work within their schools.

How sad that a situation like this could have spiraled so far out of control...

Thankfully, Gillian Gibbons will be headed home today. The President of Sudan has issued her a pardon and she will be turned over to the embassy and immediately flown home. (click here for article)

She should get home as quickly as possible because after the demonstrations last week it is obvious her life may be in danger while in Sudan. Hopefully, she will be safe from fundamentalists once she returns to England.

This woman deserves all of our respect and thanks. She left England to help a group of underprivileged children. She acted in a way that she thought was respectful of the children and the culture. At some point Muslim people need to accept responsibility for helping foreigners who have the specific purpose of educating children. Have they never heard of diversity training in Sudan?

Gibbons is sorry she won't be able to return to Sudan. Frankly, and sadly, she should be glad she is escaping with her life.

The elephant in the living room will finally be discussed.

While Romney's resume is clearly the best of the bunch voters are having to consider- there has been a major barrier. Romney's challenge has not been that he changed some of positions over time. The real concern of many members of the Republican base is now, and has always been, his adherence to Mormonism.

Romney has attempted to avoid talking about this, as though voters will forget. Religion is too important to ignore.

As Romney faces a strengthening Huckabee- whose primary attraction for many voters is clearly his status as a baptist minister, he must come out swinging with strong speeches and interviews. Voters should be very careful to jump head first in a shallow pool. Huckabee may be bright, and he may attend a church more in favor in this country but his positions on some critical issues- like illegal immigration and taxation- leave much to be desired.

Romney is right to schedule a talk with the American people. There is much to be said on this issue. Who knows? A great speech may save him.

Chavez, and his far-left American supporters, must be so disappointed- the people he thinks need him so badly have stood up and said "no thank you" to his proposed reforms. (click here for report)

The people of Venezuela want to be free from the threat of a dictator. They have spoken. Will Chavez actually respect the vote or will he try to find a way to strengthen his hold on the people? Only time will tell...

It is amazing that while people who have lived under oppression are attempting to fight socialism, there is a growing group of people (often college students who have yet to have to work for a living) attracted to this political system.

Let all of the university professors pay attention to the message sent by the citizenry of Venezuela: Just Say No To Socialism!