What Would Reagan Do?

Both Democrats and Republicans have love affairs with certain politicians.  One of the Republicans' favorites is Ronald Reagan.  Whenever I listen to Sean Hannity, when I can stand it, I hear him ask "What Would Reagan Do?"  At a Republican primary debate last year, the last question was "Would Ronald Reagan Endorse You?".  (It should be noted that it was at the Reagan library.)  But my question is why I should care what Reagan would do.  It seems odd to me that the phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" is just changed, so the Jesus is dropped and replaced by Reagan, giving him a certain God-like status.  Why should politicians be venerated like this?  It seems wildly inappropriate.  Sadly, only his spirit is with now.  So why should I care what he would do?  Did Ronald Reagan solve the illegal immigration problem?  No.  Did Ronald Reagan balance the budget and free us from debt?  No.  Did Ronald Reagan solve the energy crisis?  No.  So why should I care what he would do?  He wasn't perfect and he didn't have all the answers.  He was a great president, but I am not going to base my beliefs on what he did or even who he would endorse.  The "Founding Fathers" are also treated with nearly divine status.  People ask what they would do or think.  Why should I care?  They were around 200 years ago.  If I just listened to them I would be a slave-holding deist.  Again, they were great leaders, but not perfect.  I am not going to ask myself what someone would do before I vote.  I don't care.  I only care about what I think works NOW, today, in the context of the constitution, and I couldn't care less if it is the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, or the Constitution Party that supports it.   

Ted Stevens Defeated

I have bittersweet feelings about the defeat of Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator, from Alaska.  It means one fewer senate seat for Republicans and one more for Democrats as they try to reach that magical filibuster-proof threshold of 60 seats.  Of course, they still could get that without Saxby Chambliss or Norm Coleman losses to Jim Martin and Al Franken, respectively, if Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman side with them.  I think the government is better when there is a little gridlock and some compromise is necessary.  Just look at the last eight years compared to the last decade (the 90s).  (Or the first six years of the Bush administration, as Democrats have controlled congress since the '06 midterm elections.) With so much power and supposed/perceived mandates, one party abuses their power.  This concerns me with the Democrats now controlling the executive branch, house, and senate.  Obama and the Dems will likely have even more power than Bush, because he will likely have a "liberal" Supreme Court as well.  Bush didn't not have a majority in the Supreme Court.  And it appears Obama wants the court to be an arm of his administration, as indicated by his voting records and statements.  (To be expounded on later.)  So, it is hard for me to see a Republican lose a seat.  However, it is Ted Stevens, a convicted felon.  It is one less corrupt individual.  It wouldn't help anyone to have a felon in the senate.  I cuts down on corruption, but at what cost?  It also eliminates one senator that is simply not qualified to be a government official.  Can anyone say, in all seriousness, that the 84-year old Stevens, the 91 year-old Robert Byrd, the 84-year old Daniel Inouye, 84-year-old Frank Lautenberg, or the 84-year old Daniel Akaka should still be senators?  (Akaka, at 84, is the junior senator from his state...which I find comical.)  Stevens is proof that no one in there mid-80s should be government officials.  They deserve the retirement anyway.  I'm not saying that they were bad senators (or that they were good) but c'mon, no one should be in the U.S. Senate at that age.  They had their time to pursue their agenda and it is time to let some younger people take over.  So I am happy and sad that Ted Stevens lost his seat.  Someone younger and less corrupt is good but excesive power to either party is bad.

A Couple Sports Thoughts

Thinking about the most successful men's college basketball teams in history, the best seem to wear blue jerseys.  Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, and UCLA.  I wonder why the most successful programs all wear blue.  It there something to it?  It does seem appropriate, as blue gives off an air of success, aristocracy, and confidence.  I wonder what the most popular color in the world is.  What percentage of people say each color is there favorite.  Anyway, I am excited that the Purdue men's squad will again be very good.  I miss there strong teams of 8-10 years ago, with the likes of Brian Cardinal and Carson Cunningham.  And of course the coaching of Gene Keady.  I do not care about the end of the Steelers-Chargers game last week and I don't know what the controversy is or why anybody cares.  The last play didn't determine the outcome of the game, why is everyone getting their pants in a bunch?

Lieberman Keeps Chairmanship

I see Senator Joe Lieberman will retain his role as chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, thanks to Barack Obama.  Many Democrat leaders, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, were attempted to oust him out of the position because they were angry he supported John McCain.  They were putting themselves and their party first, ahead of their country.  I am glad Obama took the high ground; he should be looked up to for putting any hard feelings behind him. Other Democratic leaders should take note if this and act more maturely.  There are too many challenges to worry about right now to care about such petty, childish things as revenge.  Perhaps Barack Obama has learned this.  Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come, with Obama taking on the leaders of his party who have led the most unpopular, unaccomplished congress ever the last two years.  

Unity and Support?

Democrats are now telling me that I should support the next president.  Democrats are telling me that I should put past differences aside.  Democrats are saying I should respect him and embrace him.  Democrats are telling Republicans that the country now needs to united around Barack Obama.  This after the Democrats:

Called the president a warmonger when they disagreed with them.

Called the president a war criminal when they disagreed with him.

Called the president a racist when they disagreed with him.

Called the president mentally challenged when they disagreed with him.

Called the president an idiot and/or stupid when they disagreed with him.

Said the president only cared about the rich when they disagreed with him.

Said the president "wasn't their president" when they disagreed with him.

Called Condi Rice and Colin Powell "Uncle Tom's" for serving with the president.

And now the Democrats want me to suddenly support Obama and be respectful?

I will, and already do, support Obama.  I did the instant he was elected.  He is now my president.  I will honor his authority and disagree with him respectfully.  I hope the country is united and does support Barack Obama.  But not because the Democrats are telling me to. Because I am not a partisan.  Because I am an American.  Because I do not want to stoop to the same low level the Democrats did.

Dems VP Selection

I'm not a big fan of Joe Biden.  There were several candidates who I thought would be terrific candidates for Obama VP, and he didn't select any of them.  Biden clearly hurt the ticket.  Here were my choices.

1. Janet Napolitano:  I'm sorry, this would have been a genius pick and I thought of it in January.  A very, very popular and accomplished governor, from Arizona, Obama supporter, female, Washington "outsider".  What is not to like about any of those things?  Could have taken on McCain in his own state, gotten women and Hillary voters, and looked like someone who isn't from inside the beltway.  Of course she could have also offset Palin if the Republicans would have still picked her. It would have been a PERFECT pick.

2. Bill Richardson: Would have helped out with a swing state, New Mexico, would help out with experience and foreign policy, as a former ambassador, energy, as former energy secretary,  would help out with Latinos, and extremely popular, and a big Obama supporter.  Would have also been an excellent choice.

3. Evan Bayh: Young, moderate, very likable, and from a state that could have been important from Obama, Indiana.  Big Obama supporter.

4. Bob Casey, Jr.: Very popular, young, moderate senator from maybe the most important state in the election, Pennslyvania.  Big Obama supporter.  

I would have picked any of these people before Biden.  They would have all been a tremendous asset to the ticket.   Especially Janet Napolitano.  

Future Leaders of The Republican Party

Some of the people who could be key Republican players in the future:

1. Bobby Jindal

2. Eric Cantor

3. Jon Huntsman, Jr.

4. Mike Huckabee

5. Jeff Flake

6. Sarah Palin

7. Matt Blunt

8. Mitt Romney

9.Rob Portman

10. Mike Turner

11. Adam Putnam

12. Tim Pawlenty

13. Paul Ryan

14. mark Sanford

"Joe the Plumber"-hmmn he's says he might run for Congress in 2010.