THE NON BELIEVERS

As I recall it has been said that we could not operate under a parliamentary system because our political parties are not strong enough. The recent problems with the Democratic Party belie
this as people who should know better throw their support to Barack Obama even when it is
obvious that they don't really believe in him. The most glaring example of this are the Clintons,
husband and wife, who when push comes to shove, put their recent glaring criticisms of Obama
aside in the interest of the party, even though I'm sure they do not believe it's in the national
interest.

WHOSE IN WHOSE POCKET?

The Obama camp has accused McCain of being in the pocket of Big Oil, but when it comes to campaign contributions the employees of Exxon have contributed $42, 100 to Obama and to
McCain $35, 166. In addition the 2005 Energy act which among other things, gave Big Oil
large tax breaks, was supported by Senator Barack Obama, while Senator John McCain voted
against it.

ARE WE READY?

I don't think the country is ready for a black president. Until we are able to put racial separation behind us a black president will be the problem rather than a possible solution to what are perceived as the nations ills. White people will believe he is doing too much for those of his own race, and black people will believe he is not doing enough. This introduces a new factor into presidential politics. I watch blacks and whites state, rather despairingly, on talk shows that there must be an honest and open dialogue between blacks and whites, before we can settle down into a color blind nation. Unfortunately, the great bulk of the black population, and the white population, carry racial baggage that will be difficult, if not impossible to set aside.

VOTING

I know a person, a registered Democrat, who has said that he prefers a Democrat, but votes for the best person for the job, regardless of party. This presidential election he has the opportunity to put that statement into play. He has indicated that he will not vote for Obama, and thus will not vote at all. This is wrong. If he does not in fact, want Obama to be President of the United States, he should vote for McCain, otherwise, by not voting at all, he is casting a vote for Obama, because he has denied McCain a vote, which indirectly favors Obama. If a person refrains from voting because he cannot stomach the candidate of his party, he should cross party lines and vote for an alternate, rather than not vote at all. The national good transcends the political parties, and the party affiliation should be set aside in the interests of the nation.

OIL

Gas prices are out of sight with no relief apparent. Though McCain supports 0ff-shore drilling, he leaves it up to the states, mainly Florida and California, to make the decision, and they are far from enthusiatic about the venture. Obama doesn't seem to favor anything except continuing on the current path. So much for the great hearalded change he spouts The Democrats say drilling no good because it would take 10 years to see any relief at the pump. I believe American ingenuity could bring this around in much less than 10 years. Also, if we had done this some years ago, we would feel the benefits now. The best way out of this mess is for Congress to subsidize gasoline and keep the cost down to $100 a barrel, and at the same time go all out to develop new domestic sources of oil, build refineries, and establish atomic power plants. Perhaps if the $600 recently provided to many Americans had been used to subsidize gasoline it would have been a better move and as so much of the economy is tied to oil, it may have pumped up the economy as much or more than the $600 handout did. Of course, we should continue to pursue alternate forms of fuel, but recall that most people own cars that are run by gasolene, so alternate means provide no out for them. We need oil in order to progress until the alternates become a reality and the people have time to adjust to the changes.

WHY ALL THE APOLOGIES?

It seems that hardly a day passes that one or both of the presidential candidates or their followers are apologizing for som ething they said. If they believed what they said, they shouldn't apologize, if they didn't mean it or believe it, they shouldn't have said it in the first place. They should rtemember who they are, where they are and what they represent and keep their mouth shut. Apologies, as that great cavalry commander John Wayne said are a sign of weakness, and one could add, of poor thinking or action and we don't need any of this in the White House.

WHAT'S GOING ON?

When those who benefit most from living in a country, contribute the least to its defense and those who benefit least are asked to pay the ultimate price, something happens to the soul of that country. I don't remember the origin of this quotation, but it hits the nail on the head regarding this nation today. Not only do people refuse to serve, but they also encourage the young to ignore the armed forces. What is worse is that a sizeable number of people, mostly from large urban areas, reflect a personal animus towards those who do serve. Also, in this connection, I do not believe there has ever been a president who had to contend with the continual vile, crude, and downright dirty language that President Bush has endured from the extreme left. It is not necessary to agree with the president, but it should be kept in mind that he or she is the titular head of the nation, that as Head of State the position is in great extent symbolic, and therefore when one reviles the president, he is in effect passing the same vilification onto himself. Other presidents have been unpopular to varying degrees. Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson and Woodrow Wilson come to mind, but none of these suffered quite the same nastiness as George W. Bush. As you may have guessed, I'm one of the few who believe that President Bush, like President Truman, will be recognized by history, and ranked in the top percentile of presidents. We seem to have forgotten what started all the current rancor towards the president--namely the premeditated attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, the subsequent invasion of Iraq and the elimination of Hussein. Perhaps we should have left Iraq at that point, as the first President Bush did, that's a point for others to work out, but the undeniable fact is There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil. This is indisputable. I suggest that soon after Bush leaves office there will be an attack of some sort in the United States,,irrespective of who becomes president. To test the mettle of the new president. Let's all hope he or she is up to the task!