The Democrats are about to run out of real estate. There is only a few more months of the 'Love Guru' influence on Obama before he has to start stating what 'change' he is really touting.

Those in the know realize the 'change' Obama is for is change towards a government more in line with that of the National Socialists. Do you really think Obama will legalize drug usage beyond medical marijuana? Do you really think Obama will stop the attacks on piracy by the RIAA and MPAA (especially considering most of the members in the sponsoring organizations of those two entities have endorsed him)? Do you actually think we'll get out of Iraq? Do you think he will actually rescind the Patriot Act?

If you believe any of that, you had better look again at the candidates running. Obama is the candidate for those advocating a police state, not freedom. It amazes me how he can put up a smokescreen and avoid the truth like he does.

A huge deal is being made in the news media concerning Scott McClellan's new book that supposedly 'exposes the truth' about the Bush administration.

Of course, all those media outlets are neglecting to state the publisher of the book is owned by a company controlled by George Soros. Remember the story a few weeks ago about David Brock (the previous Republican turned ultraliberal) going to meet with Soros in New York about something? I am guessing McClellan's book was the subject of that meeting.

McClellan, like his namesake from the Civil War, has decided to harm a sitting president in the middle of a war based primarily on promoting freedom by coming out and attacking him. Now, whether he turns out as rabid as Brock has will be determined. However, this does prove one major thing about the Bush administration even if most of the speculation in the book about what happened in meetings McClellan did not attend is not true:

The Bush administration's hiring practices leave something to be desired.

This is why 'yes-men' are the worst possible thing to surround yourself with when you are in a position of authority. Sorry, Scotty, but that's what you were. You may now be having a crisis of conscience, but you were a yes-man. Now, you are a yes-man to Brock and Soros because you want to be liked, even though the only reason you kept the job you had was because you kowtowed well.

Let's be honest, McClellan's ineptitude at his job is one of the prime reasons Bush's ratings are now abysmal. The decline started because of McClellan's inability to be a spokesman. That started the Bush administration on the wrong foot, and it has spiraled downward ever since.

This from Lynn Abbey:

I'm still sorting this out myself, but realizing that pretty much
everyone on this list is at least peripherally aware that I was
married to Bob Asprin, I thought I should pass the word...

Bob died yesterday afternoon (May 22, 2008). It was sudden and
unexpected, probably a heart attack. A friend was supposed to take
him to the airport as he was scheduled to be Guest-of-Honor at Marcon
this weekend.

She found him on his sofa with one of Terry Prachett's books open on
his chest.

I hope he had simply dozed off and passed in his sleep.

When my thoughts are a bit more organized, I plan to post them...and
some pictures from the good times...on my blog
(http://www.lynnabbey.com/blog).

It's a strange, strange day....

Lynn

I am losing way, way too many of my inspirations this year. First, William Buckley, then Gary Gygax, and now the sudden death of Robert Asprin, author of the Thieves World, Phule's Company, and other books.

I feel old.

I am really getting fed up with my own party on a number of things.

First and foremost: let's get our house in order before we can claim to have the ability to get the country in order.

There have been way too many philanderers, cheats, etc. elected to office as Republicans. The fact Dan Young, to take an example, is still leading in the polls even after the 'road to nowhere' garbage is just shameful. He is the poster boy for earmark corruption. The fact the national organization turns a blind eye to people like him just helps with Obama's 'change' bull.

Next, the party needs to get some spine. Stop trying to kiss up to the press, they will never be on our side. In the end, it is truth that will win the day. Yes, the American people CAN handle the truth when they are presented it. It is the Left that has to run behind smoke and mirrors.

Tell the truth about Obama's communist advisers. Tell the truth about his affiliations with black separatist terrorists. Tell the truth about his hatred of Jews and the Israeli state. Tell the truth about his 'change' being nothing but a smokescreen in order to force us to a lower standard of living.

Tell the truth about candidates running for the House and Senate that say one thing, but then do another when they get elected. Show them examples. Use their old campaign promises against them.

Point out the truth about the rape gangs supported by Saddam Hussein. Point out that the standard of living of the average Iraqi is improving by leaps and bounds. Show how women, and religion, are no longer being suppressed due to our invasion of Iraq. Stop letting the Left frame the war with the entire WMD mistake, when that was but one reason to get rid of Hussein. Put some of the Iraqis who have welcomed us to free them on our advertisements.

Third, stop hamstringing ourselves by not talking about the real issues. The Left politicizes the war, yet we cannot? That's ridiculous. It is time to put it out there. Even if you believe in climate change, point out that we've already been wrong on some things like the ozone layer, so emphasize more money for research, not radical plans based on some ubiquitous 'carbon footprint' baloney that has only been concocted within the past two years.

We've already blown it by putting up as our nominee one of the worst candidates we could find. Now we're stuck with him, but that doesn't mean we cannot prove Obama and his buddies at Daily KOS and MoveOn are infinitely worse for the kind of 'change' they will attempt to bring. 'Change' for the sake of change never, ever works out.

I was listening to Mike & Mike this morning, and they had a little argument concerning whether a football coach watching film was more or less intellectual than a chess match.

Here's the problem: I would never let anyone called an 'intellectual' or 'academic' make policy decisions, decide our leadership in the country, etc. Of course, the 'eggheads' (as mentioned by a Clinton supporter) all are on the Obama bandwagon, and yet another reason not to support the man.

Of course, you college students out there who want to be a part of that 'intellectual' crowd are going to wonder why I make such a statement.

An academic works in the field of theory. You make a theory, try to prove or disprove it. If it is disproven, you create a new theory and start again. If it is proven, then you declare it good and move to another area to start the process again.

An academic, though, does not adapt on the fly. They deal in the black and white, not the shades of gray. Something is either right or wrong when it comes to theories.

Now, a football coach, businessman, farmer, or even president of the United States does not have the luxury of a stop and start. A farmer, if his crops are not growing at a slow pace, does not have the luxury of halting everything, replanting his crop, and trying again. A president does not have the luxury of stopping an action or policy suddenly and restopping it, as the momentum is carried through. Even if a mistake is made, that mistake carries on for a long time and in many cases needs to be 'rode out' to the end. It isn't enough for a coach to stop and start a defense because it does not work, he has to adapt the defense as the game is being played and fix any fundamental errors through teaching between games. He can't just dump the entire defensive team and start over.

In the lives of non-academics, actions have far reaching consequences. Things can change over days, months, and even years. For an example, we just cannot suddenly stop Nafta. That has consequences. We cannot just stand up and walk out of Iraq. That has consequences not only for us, for the Iraqi people. You can debate until you are blue in the face about whether we should have attacked in the first place (Personally, I wish the secondary reasons were emphasized more on this, as I think going in WAS a good idea), but you just can't 'stop the theory' like I describe above that the academics want. The world does not work like a laboratory.

Here's another example: the global warming crowd have whined for years about the fact the ozone layer hole needs closing. We must close the hole, they trumpeted. Now, the hole IS closing, and guess what? It's causing MORE warming by doing so. Again, the world is not a lab. Actions have consequences, and many of those consequences cannot be foreseen even by the academics and their theories.

It is frustrating that we are going to elect the academics' chosen candidate for president. By the time we all realize he's in over his head, the damage will be done.

Forty eight years ago, due to the fact certain individuals could not read the Constitution, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

Around the time of that action, and the various marches and demonstrations, Martin Luther King spoke the words "I have a dream." He dreamed of a world where skin color made no difference. He dreamed of a world where 'content of a man's character' was what defined him in society.

Forty years later...

We have a black political candidate who, like other 'leaders' in the community cannot get over, not only forty years ago, but 140 years ago. Martin Luther King asked for men to look forward, to propel our country to greatness. The popular black leadership have no desire to try and move forward, just mire all of us in the past.

Mr. Obama claims he is for change, but the only change he wants is a change to a socialist police state. He associates with those who advocate a violent overthrow of the country he's trying to become president of, and yet the media is so afraid to report on this because they may be labeled as 'racists'.

Because we whites are so afraid of that label, we're going to let Obama get a pass on his true politics. In order to avoid 'offending' people, we're going to end up with Karl Marx.

All this race talk is being used to obscure the truth about Obama's politics. I admired Martin Luther King, who was shot just before I was born. Martin Luther King was a great man, and those that truly emulate him, I respect. I've read the 'I have a dream' speech dozens upon dozens of times. The entire point of that speech is 'Let's move forward, into the future, and make the world better for all of us in the American Way.' It was not 'Let's push backwards and start racial divisions and impose the worst economic and social environment possible to destroy the American Way.'

Remember, folks...popular elections heralded in such prime examples of Obama's politics as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Mugabe.

In less than a week, two of my idols have passed away.

First, mentioned in a previous blog post, was William F. Buckley, who helped define what it is to be a conservative.

On March 3rd, I lost my second idol.

E. Gary Gygax helped create the hobby I have enjoyed since 1977, when I first discovered the game of Dungeons and Dragons as a 5th grader. Bored out of my skull at Wednesday night church, my friend at the time, Jim Rapchinski, brought a new book with him. That book ended up changing my life.

Oh, my first adventure wasn't spectacular to say the least. It was 'In Search of the Unknown', the module that came packaged in the blue box. I died in the first encounter, with the character I chose out of the back of pregenerated characters. Not surprisingly, it was a kobold that did my poor little fighter in, but that little kobold hooked me.

Over the years, my love of the game waxed and waned. I always came back to it, however. Fifteen years later, I was writing for Hero Games and the Champions RPG, but my Dungeon Masters Guide, Player's Handbook, and Monster Manual did not collect dust. Twenty years later, I had moved on to writing things for Shadowrun, but I always kept coming back to the various incarnations of Dungeons and Dragons.

As August approaches, and the fourth edition of the game about to debut, the grandfather of gaming has passed away. Those millions of people playing World of Warcraft, Everquest, or another fantasy game either online or off have Gary to thank for the kickstart he gave.

Some of you know what Gary went through over the years. His love of his creation blinded him many times to the things going on around him. Because of that, he ended up losing control of his game's publication. His later attempts at games seemed half-hearted sometimes, but he was gentlemanly enough to not become a vocal critic of what happened to his creation.

Gary was a critic, though, to those who subscribed to his private mailing lists. In politics, he was very libertarian in thinking, yet as pro-defense as anyone after 9/11. On gaming, he mourned what he once called his biggest failure, allowing the skills in Oriental Adventures. With 2nd, and then 3rd editions focusing so much on dice rolling to resolve skills, Gary stated that role playing was suffering.

Gary begrudingly accepted online games for the same reason. Gary was all about taking the role of a character in the game, and not relying on player dice rolls. This seemed contradictory for the man whose works were scattered with so many random tables and generators, but Gary created those tables for the gamemaster, not the player.

A few years ago, when I was trying to get 'Living Erde' off the ground and before the RPGA squashed all non-company games from its line up, I met Gary at GenCon. He was the nicest man, willing to talk your ears off about fantasy genres. But, even then, you could tell his health was failing. Honestly, I am surprised he lasted as long as he did with his health issues cropping up.

Still, at the age of 70, E. Gary Gygax died way before his time. Many different tributes to Gary have made comments about 'failing his saving throw vs death', and he would have laughed at them. That was the thing about Gary, he had gone through his stage of being bitter about losing control of TSR, Inc., but in his later years, he could laugh at himself. He appeared as himself in an episode of Futurama, again making fun of his attraction to random tables.

The world is going to miss Gary. Even though I did not know him very well, I know I already do.

I just logged into Drudge Report to check on what the hot stories were today. I thought it would be yet another Obama vs McCain vs Hillary story, but instead I was confronted with:

RIP, WFB

I did not have to click on the link to know who 'WFB' was.

William F Buckley was one of the main reasons I call myself a conservative. The story of how he built National Review, and energized the emerging conservative movement has inspired me and helped shape my political views over the years.

WFB's views and my views are almost identical down the line.

All I can say is at least he won't be around to watch the near communist Obama taking on the liberal McCain for president.

God speed, Mr. Buckley. We will miss your insights and guidance through the rough waters ahead.

Well, the reason I believe the primary system needs reformed has come true. It looks like the Republicans are going to bend over and support someone whose mental stability I question.

This front-loaded primary system is inherently unfair on both sides of the aisle. Voting should take place in the primaries in reverse population order, so the small states get their say in things, and the larger states like California can be how a candidate coalesces their popularity into a victory.

Instead, come May when I get to vote, I'm only going to have one candidate on the ballot. (maybe 2, if Ron Paul doesn't drop out).

Between McCain and Paul, I'll go Paul. Seriously, despite all my griping in previous columns, at least I know how Paul will act.

I'm actually beginning to hope for Bloomberg to run, which is scary as I normally hate third party candidates.

Well, Huckleberry and Droopy have won their respective caucuses over in Iowa.

Now they get to see whether they can stand the heat about to be thrown their way. I suspect Obama can survive the Clinton attack better than Huckabee will withstand Romney's assault.

Unfortunately, I'm now resolved to the fact we're getting someone worse than George W Bush no matter who ends up on top. Within a year after the election, I expect both sides to come to the same conclusion.

Thank God in 2012, Mike Johanns will be ready to run.

Iowa, here's the appeal:

Vote for Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Alan Keyes, or Duncan Hunter.

Although I do a lot of Romney defending here, I cannot say I'm sold on him. Keyes and Hunter will be out of the race by the time I get the chance to vote, unfortunately. Iowans, you have that chance.

On the Democrat side, none of the above, or write in Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, or someone else that actually holds the principles of FDR and JFK. None of your current choices do that at all. They hold to the principles of Che Guevarra, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung. The Republican candidates are bad, but the Democrats have much worse.

Hopefully, this country will still be around in four years after this fiasco and we'll get someone with a clue to run and stop the slide that starts November 2008.

I never thought I would discuss religion so much on this blog. I especially never thought Republicans would be so bone headed as to make it an issue in the presidential campaign.

But, here we go again.

Is Mormonism a cult?

When it was first formed, yes. But...so was Christianity when it first formed. It was a Jewish Cult.

Unlike Islam, though, or today's cults like the cults that have killed themselves due to comets, supposed invasion, or putting firewood up against the door when the government was using incendiary rounds, those that have followed the Mormon faith have allowed themselves to adapt to make their faith less of a cult and more mainstream.

Yet, here we have the bigots going after them yet again in the press and on the campaign.

Meanwhile, someone with a blatantly Islamic background, due to his own name, is not asked one iota of questions about his faith, whether he's a Muslim or not, or other questions that could actually impact the security of the country. Nor is someone who funds a major leftist organization asked about his cult, Scientology. Nope. Those cults we don't talk about. We have to dredge out attacks that are over a hundred years old against the one 'semi-complete' package conservative that has popularity.

Nice job, Huckabee.

The Iowa Caucus is in three days, and being next door in Omaha, I get to hear the lovely commercials put out by the Democrats.

One such commercial is from the NFA (I believe that is the National Farmers Alliance, a radical 'no corporate farm' group). Every one of their ads touts the John Edwards Reform 'Plan', aka no lobbyist money for politicians, especially those representing corporate farms. Boo hoo hoo. They claim this ad is not supporting any one candidate, but once I figure out what the procedure is, that logic is going to get challenged.

Anyways, the main ad running these days talks about how family farmers are being shut down, and the corporations are getting big profits and how that hurts the middle class...

...except they neglect to state the next step in the process, and what happens when John Edward's plan gets implemented:

1) Corporation-ran farms make a profit
2) Shareholders of corporation-run farms are given the profit that is not rolled back into the business
3) The majority shareholders of these corporation farms are pension funds.
4) Thus, if you cut back, or try and eliminate the profit from the corporate-run farms, you directly hurt those pension funds invested in the system.
5) When a non-SSN individual goes to retire, they expect a pension fund to be there for their retirement. But, if it is bankrupt because a profit could not be made by the corporation-run farm and thus no dividends increasing the fund, you have no retirement income and become destitute.

So, do you help a handful of farmers who do not use techniques to increase their yields or are too stubborn to be purchased by a larger conglomerate, where most are allowed to continue to work their field at a set wage with that pension as a result in most cases. Or, do you threaten the pension plans of numerous other companies and LABOR UNIONS in the process of kissing up to the complaining farmers?

This is the PRIME reason John Edwards should never become president.

Single-issue candidates should never be elected to political office. That has always been my motto, even though I have supported candidates verbally in the past who are single issue.

In this campaign, we have not one or two, but five that I can see running. Two, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, are running solely on withdrawal from Iraq. The reason I call these two single issue is it dominates everything they do, and when you look at their positions on other issues, you know you cannot elect either to the presidency. Ron Paul would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and thinks the emancipation of slaves by Lincoln during the civil war was illegal. Kucinich wants a communist state, and sees ufos in his spare time.

Three others also are single issue, but have yet to go through the scrutiny of their beliefs like Paul and Kucinich. One, Tom Tancredo, has withdrawn from the race. He was running solely on the immigration issue. Though immigration was important, Tancredo could have shown his conservative credentials better if he got off the subject every once in a while.

The last two single-issue candidates are both Republicans: Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani. Sorry supporters of both, but Huckabee's only credentials is his opposition to abortion. Otherwise, his views on other subjects mirror Hillary Clinton. How can Republicans focus just solely on abortion and hope to win, when the president has little to no influence on the reversal of Roe v Wade?

Guliani is running as the mirror opposite of Paul and Kucinich, in that he's running on his record concerning 9/11. But when you start looking at his other positions, those not being broadcast to the voters, he's not that much better than the Democrats.

Thus, I'm down to Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Duncan Hunter. I wish Duncan had the cash flow Huckabee received just by being endorsed by Chuck Norris. This race would be good then, as I think Duncan is one of the best candidates issue-wise. Instead, we conservatives have Fred Thompson, who is portrayed by the media as 'Sleepy' from the 7 dwarves, and Romney, who since he is Mormon has to fight against bigotry by those supporting Huckabee and has some shakey credentials himself since he's a 'born again' conservative (using the religious analogy).

Honestly, though, I'll take a neo-con Romney over 'sleepy' Fred at the moment, but that may change. Fred's statement on Pakistan was right on, but Romney's wasn't bad either.

Please, though, folks...stop with the Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee bandwagons. Neither would make a good president. Look deeper than their one issue and use logic, not emotion, to decide who to vote for.

The country depends on it.

Definition of a football fan: Someone who, since their team sucked so bad, will go to a bar on a cold Thursday afternoon and watch the 'Bowl Game that Never Happened' simulated on a Playstation 3 console.

150+ people showed up at DJ Dugout here in Omaha yesterday to do just that. I was one of them, but I go to the remotes for ESPN 1620 The Zone radio all the time, so I can be excused. It was just nuts, however, for people to be cheering in a standing room only bar for a video game.

All I can do is echo Damon Benning (former Nebraska running back) - Nebraska fans are borderline nuts.

(Btw, Nebraska beat Notre Dame 34-31 on a fourth quarter comeback and field goal in the last minute. Don't think ND did that well...they got 21 pts off turnovers/kickoff returns)

I hope the American people pay attention to the events happening in Pakistan today.

Here was a very smart, strong willed, crusader for democracy who was gunned down by Islamic terrorists.

America, Al Quaeda and the rest of the Islamic fundamentalist world will not 'negotiate', do not want 'democracy', and will kill to prevent either from occurring.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Bhutto is dead, and we're all next. Get your heads out of your rears and understand this, and have the moral fortitude to do what it takes to get rid of these fanatical cultists forever.

I am really getting sick and tired of the religion-bashing taking place in the presidential race.

Mike Huckabee attacked Mitt Romney on being a Mormon, the media attacks Huckabee on being a Baptist minister, Hillary attacks Obama through her surrogate army on his ties to muslims, etc. The atheists attack all three candidates on having a religion, period.

The worst of the bunch is the last, however. I will always maintain that the lack of belief in God is just as much a religion as belief in God. The First Amendment of the Constitution states the government cannot impose a religion on the people. In other words, they cannot force atheism on us, either!

It is just frustrating to see this country spiraling into the same mistakes that destroyed the Roman Empire. You would think the so-called 'intellectuals' on the left would see this, but they are blind to their own destruction. No wonder the extremist Muslim position is gaining strength as people rebel against the atheists who have seized power in the country.

The National Review endorsed Mitt Romney today for the Republican primary.

After reading that endorsement, as well as the transcript of the Hugh Hewitt interview concerning it, I think may give Mitt the push he needs to go forward.

I've been waffling a bit on my own pick, seeing what was going to come out. Yet, I've been on the Mitt mailing list from the start. I did not know why at the time, but Mitt seems to pass most of my litmus test I mentioned a few days ago in this blog. It is definitely turning out Mike Huckabee is not fitting the test, with all the incidents concerning immigration and furloughs that are coming to light.

A small minority may attack Romney on his religion, but I will tell you one thing. I have relatives that are Mormons, as well as friends that are Mormons. They are about the nicest, most likable, people that you will ever meet. They are generous to a fault. I have absolutely no problem with voting for a Mormon.

As many of you have heard, a 19 year old with severe mental issues went on a sniping binge in the largest shopping mall here in Omaha yesterday. He killed 9 people and wounded 5 others using a modified SKS rifle.

Here is what I posted on Free Republic in response to a thread on the matter:

It was obvious this kid (and even if he was 19, he was still a kid in my eyes as he had never grown up emotionally) had planned this for a while. He timed this with the President’s visit, knowing most law enforcement would be away from the store. He had previously scouted the store, as he knew right where to go to have the best vantage point for ‘sniping’ of all the malls in Omaha (Van Maur has a big open area, with a nice railing around the third floor where one can brace a gun...no other store has as good of view in any of the malls in town)

All the warning signs were there of the kid about to go off, like the original poster stated. This is a tragedy that could have been stopped by those who knew the kid.

And, of course, CNN immediately trots out things like ‘mall security’, and ‘are you safe in a mall’ instead of looking at the real cause of the problem: clueless idiots not paying attention to signs right in front of them.

To the poster that said an SKS is not an assault rifle: sorry, yes it is. It may be only single shot, but it is a variant of a fully automatic gun. Though it might be used by some for hunting, it is not what this area calls a hunting rifle by any means. This SKS, according to witnesses, was also firing 3 round bursts. This means it was modified back to its assault rifle roots.

I am very much a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but the weapon the kid was carrying is exactly the weapon banned by the assault weapon law. That brings up the question on how someone mentally instable like he was could get a hold of one of these weapons. Rumor was he stole it from his step father. But this also means none of those assault weapon provisions in law would have prevented this, thus proving how useless they are. A psychopath can get a hold of one of these weapons, yet law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves and thus end up becoming victims. One person with a pistol to defend themselves could have prevented 8 other deaths, but you won’t hear that on the liberal media.

Now, a little clarification: 'Robbie' the shooter had more than enough signs pointing at a kid that was a ticking time bomb. He lost his girlfriend, his job, etc. all within the last two weeks. He was to be in court next week for a misdemeanor charge against him. He had a fascination with guns, killing, and threatening people. His step father owned the SKS, and 'Robbie' not only knew about the gun, but how to break in to take it. He showed the gun off to the stupid woman he was living with the night before, for God's sake!

The feigning of surprise by the lady and her son, who was 'Robbie's friend is a bunch of baloney. Unfortunately, the kid did this just after the President had left Omaha, thus all the national media was still in town. CNN is having an absolute field day on this, filled with half-truths in order to promote their agenda. Thank god for our local folks as they have a clue on how to report for the most part.

Yesterday was a tragedy. Let's not make it even worse by misinterpreting what really happened to fit a political agenda.

Is it too much to ask for to have a real conservative actually in the race for president, that could poll more than 2%?

This is the most frustrating election ever as there are no candidates until you get to Duncan Hunter that would get my vote at any other time.

Here's all I am asking for:

1) A Candidate that will protect innocent lives. By this, I mean both protect society from murderers and protect children from abortionists, as well as sex offenders.

2) A Candidate that understands we cannot have people with no medical history, and no way to determine whether they violate #1 above, running over our borders without restriction.

3) A Candidate that realizes protecting our citizens does not need to go to the extremes of the supercomputer in I, Robot, who basically wanted to imprison everyone in order to better 'protect' them from themselves. This includes forcing things like government-run 'programs' to 'help' people, thus making them slaves to the system.

4) A Candidate that believes interfering with life in the home, and in private, is only applicable in a situation where lives are being put into direct danger, not indirect danger via second hand smoke and other trivial actions

5) A Candidate that realizes we are the enforcers of political and personal liberty in the world, and thus we must act against those who oppress their people. Totalitarianism cannot be defined by the words 'left' and 'right', there is either freedom or oppression no matter the basis of the supposed political beliefs.

Five key traits I want in the president. Rudy violates #1, Huckabee violates #2, many candidates violate #3 and #4, Ron Paul violates #5. The only candidate that fits all of these is poor Duncan Hunter, who is being ignored by everyone because he doesn't have a strong personality and can't get the fundraising to offset that disadvantage.

On the Democratic side, I've yet to find a candidate that even adheres to 1 of those traits I've listed.

Thus, when it comes to the general election, I'll vote for the person who matches the most of those five traits I've listed - therefore holding my nose to do it. But, I would much rather have someone that agrees with a few of my positions than none at all. Some would argue I should not vote then, but I cannot let a person who believes in none of the five have a free ride.